A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On June 26, 2018, the Defendant, at the Defendant’s house located in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, and received a report of assault and used the Defendant’s seat, and, on the ground that the border E belonging to the Seo-gu Police Station D police station of Seo-gu Incheon, Incheon, would listen to the Defendant’s wife’s report of assault from the Defendant’s wife, and used the Defendant, as his hand, the Defendant expressed that “Sari police would frane inside the house, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling E’s son, and ambated E by hand.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning the handling of 112 reports.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. On-site and damaged photographs, 112 reported case handling table and medical certificate;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended sentence [Scope of Recommendation] In the case where the degree of obstructing the performance of official duties (i.e., interference with the performance of official duties or coercion of duties) is minor (i.e., January to August) in the mitigated area (i., January to August), [i.e., a special mitigated person] the crime of this case where the degree of obstructing the exercise of public authority by assaulting a police officer in the course of performing official duties is minor (i.e., obstructing the exercise of public authority by assaulting a police officer in the course of performing official duties, and the nature of the crime is poor; (ii) the police officer carrying out legitimate duties is light of the fact that there is a need to strengthen the punishment for the crime; (iii) the defendant has been punished several times by violence, etc.; and (iv) the fact that there was an injury to a damaged police officer.

However, considering the fact that the defendant has no criminal record for the same kind, the fact that the defendant committed the crime of this case while committing the crime of this case, and his mistake is divided into several circumstances favorable to the defendant, and the arguments of this case are shown in the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc.