A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On September 24, 2016, at around 22:25, the Defendant: (a) committed an assault, such as the Defendant, at the “D amusement station” located in C, the Defendant: (b) committed an act of assaulting the back door of the patrol car once, with the Defendant’s 112 notification that the Defendant did not pay the drinking value; and (c) the Defendant’s 112 notification of G 112 notification by the Jeju E District, and the police officer “the same bit of the Jeju police bitch;” and (d) the Defendant took a bath to the said police officer by interfering with the Defendant’s boarding of the patrol vehicle.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers with respect to 112 reporting handling duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. A criminal investigation report (at the time of dispatch, etc.);

1. Application of related Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act ( favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing) is that the Defendant committed the instant crime by interfering with the police officer’s 112 reporting handling duties by obstructing the police officer’s 112 reporting handling duties by obstructing the police officer from getting off the patrol police officer’s getting out of the patrol police officer’s chest, and walking out. Furthermore, in order to establish the national legal order and eradicate the light of public authority, it is necessary to severely punish the Defendant with regard to the crime against public authority, such as interfering with the performance of such official duties, etc. In addition, the Defendant’s crime of damaging public goods on April 5, 2007, which committed a fine of KRW 1 million and KRW 3 million by obstructing the performance of official duties on May 1, 2014.

However, the defendant committed the crime of this case.