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.

Criminal facts

At around 20:50 on April 14, 2014, the Defendant was asked questions about the circumstances of the instant case from the slope G belonging to the F Zone G of the U.S., the U.S. police station called for 112 report and called for 112.

On the front side of the commercial building, the Defendant expressed that “I am son, N. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L.” on the front side of the commercial building, used both hands to salute H’s flab and flab, ske the flab, flabing the flab, flabing the shape of G’s flab, flabing it, flabing the flab, flabing the shape of G’s flab, fla

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of 112 reports and investigation affairs by police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

2. Application of the police protocol of statement to H and G;

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

2. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition.

3. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

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

5. The act of obstructing the performance of official duties is an element of sentencing unfavorable to the defendant, with the desire to and assault the police officer who handles the 112 reported case with the reason of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act.

On the other hand, it is an element of sentencing favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant is both aware of the facts charged in this case, the fact that the defendant committed the crime in this case by contingency while under the influence of alcohol, and the fact that the defendant recently deposited one million won against the above police officers, etc.

Furthermore, the sentencing data expressed in the arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, and environment, were taken into consideration, and the sentencing guidelines for obstruction of performance of official duties, prepared by the Sentencing Committee,