A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Provided, That the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final.

Punishment of the crime

On March 18, 2015, at around 00:30 on March 18, 2015, the Defendant assaulted the Defendant, upon receiving a report of 112 that the Defendant drinks alcohol at the Defendant’s residence, and was asked questions about the circumstances of the instant case from E, a police officer belonging to the Jeju Police Station D Zone D, a police officer called for, and took a bath to E, and assaulted the E’s part of E by hand.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate performance of duties on the investigation by police officers and the prevention of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of E and F;

1. Investigation reports (Attachment of investigation reports by police officers dispatched to the scene), and investigation reports;

1. Investigation report (place of work, attachment of a list of 112 reported cases), place of work, and case handling table;

1. Investigation reports (to be accompanied by voice recording files and recording records at the site), c.;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for photograph explanation;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 136 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as the "justifiable circumstances") of the suspended sentence;

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: One month to five years; and

2. Scope of recommendations on the sentencing criteria: Imprisonment with prison labor for six months to one year and four months (determination of types of punishment). The basic area (6 months to one year and four months) of the obstruction of performance of official duties shall be the category 1 (determination of the obstruction of performance of official duties).

3. The defendant's act when the decision of sentencing was committed on the part of the police officer in the course of performing his duties is highly unfavorable to the defendant, and the defendant deposited one million won as the depositer of the police officer, the confession of the crime of this case and reflects it, and the fact that the defendant has no criminal record of the suspension of execution or more within the last ten years is favorable to the defendant.

In addition to the above circumstances, all the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case shall be determined as per the disposition.