A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight 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

On November 17, 2019, the Defendant: (a) took a fighting between the Defendant and the Defendant’s her son from a police officer affiliated with the Seongdong Police Station C District, who was called up after having received a report of 00:57 on November 17, 2019, and took the fighting between the Defendant and the Defendant’s her son; (b) took the fighting at the seat after having patroled the Defendant’s her son; and (c) moved the Defendant’s her son to the dwelling of the Defendant’s son in the event of his her her son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of the 112 reported case by the police officer.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. A photo of the damaged part;

1. Application of CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes

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. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on Probation;

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

2. Aggravation elements of the obstruction of performance of official duties [Article 1] The scope of recommendations according to the sentencing guidelines for the crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties [Article 1] the obstruction of performance of official duties/performance of duties [Special Aggravation]: The area of aggravation of repeated crimes not concurrent crimes [the scope of recommendations and recommendations], one year and four years.

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for eight months, and two years under a suspended sentence, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of office by shouldering the fingers of a police officer who conducts public duties in a state of drinking, and the degree of such failure is not easy when based on the damaged parts, photographs, etc.

In addition, the Defendant was punished by a fine for similar reasons in 2018, but he was not aware of it and again committed the instant crime.

However, various sentencings shown in the trial process of this case, such as the fact that the defendant is deeply against the crime, the fact that the defendant deposited a certain amount to the damaged public official, the age and character of the defendant, family relationship, motive, means and result of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime.