A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

except that 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

At around 23:40 on November 5, 2016, the Defendant: (a) received 112 report from the police officer belonging to the police station E zone belonging to the House of the Gu Government Police Station called “Isk-day” from F and G, a police officer belonging to the police officer belonging to the House of the Gu Government Police Station E zone called “Isk-Isk-Isk-Isk-Isk-Isk-Isk-Is off, Isk-Isk-Isk-Is off, Isk-Is off, Isk-Isk-Is the above F's length and shoulder in his hand; (b) 1sk-Is the left side with his hand, sk-Isk-Is-Is-Is-Is-Is-Is-Is-Is-Is-Is-Is-Is-Is-Is.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of police officers' duties concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The statement of each police officer made to F and G;

1. A H statement;

1. Receipt of reports on investigation, and 112 reports;

1. Application of each statute on photographs of damage;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime concerned;

1. In the event that the act of assault and intimidation was committed against multiple public officials who perform the same duties as the ordinary concurrent crimes, multiple crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties are established according to the number of public officials who perform official duties, and where the above act of assault and intimidation was committed in the same opportunity at the same place, and it is evaluated as one act under the social concept, multiple crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties are crimes of conceptual concurrence.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505 Decided June 25, 2009, etc.). Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, in light of the following: (a) the period of probation is too excessive; and (b) the two police officers committed the instant crime; (c) the commission of the instant crime is not good; and (d) the police officers need to engage in light of the nature of the relevant crime; and (e) the need to engage in light of the light view of public authority, it is necessary to strictly punish the Defendant.

However, the defendant committed the crime of this case.