A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

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

Punishment of the crime

At around 01:00 on January 18, 2018, the Defendant: (a) reported D Apartment 203 305, and 112, “the husband was her her son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s her son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s 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 by police officers concerning 112 reporting handling duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to F and G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a criminal investigation report (a suspect's wife H's statement), investigation report (a report on confirmation of cellphone photographs);

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

1. The main sentence of Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act of the community service order [type of decision] Where the degree of interference with official duties is minor (a person who interferes with performance of official duties and coercion of duties) [a person subject to special sentencing] mitigated area [a scope of recommendation] January to August [a scope of recommendation] mitigated area] - Where the degree of interference with police officers' duty is minor: there is minor reason for affirmative assault, intimidation, deceptive scheme, or public duty interference - there is no criminal conviction or more serious social relation clearly and clearly, [a punishment and recommendation punishment] The punishment of a person subject to law for one to five years, and the punishment of a person subject to law for one month: January to August [a decision of sentence] of the defendant's refusal to present his/her status as a police officer, resulting in the crime of this case while the defendant presented his/her identification card, and even after his/her desire to present his/her resident registration number and statement of his/her mobile phone number.