A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

Around 04:05 on February 19, 2019, the Defendant, at the main point of “C” located in Seocheon-si B, who received a report of 112, stating, “A speech assault was committed to the effect that he would have paid the drinking value and returned home,” and who was demanded from E to pay the drinking value from the head of the police station D District Unit of the Busan High Police Station D District, 1,000 won, which was dispatched, and who was asked to return home, assault the above E by walking the right clothes of E.

As a result, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement to F and E;

1. G statements;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing the 112 Reporting Case Handling Table;

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order;

1. Scope of punishment by law: Not more than five years of imprisonment;

2. The scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines [the scope of the punishment of imprisonment] the obstruction of performance of official duties [the category 1]/ the coercion of official duties [the scope of the recommended area and the punishment of recommendation] basic area, six months through one year and six months.

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for six months and suspension of execution for two years, a crime of obstructing performance of official duties needs to be severely punished as an act that circumvents legitimate exercise of public authority and undermines the function of the State’s legal order.

In this case, it is not good that the defendant uses violence against the police officer dispatched by his mistake.

The fact that the defendant has many records of fines due to violence-related crimes and obstruction of performance of official duties, and is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the circumstances favorable to the defendant include the fact that the defendant recognizes and reflects his mistake, that there is no record of criminal punishment since 2011, and that his and his and her family members appeal the preference, etc., and the age, character, character, and behavior of the defendant.