A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six 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

On April 4, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 22:40, at the Jeju-si Line 19-ro 19 same transportation distance; (b) received a report from an taxi engineer who was on board, and received a request from C to return home by paying taxi expenses from the security guards belonging to the Jeju-dong Police Station B police box, who was called by the Defendant; and (c) took a bath to the said police officer; and (d) took her hand at the time of breath of the said police officer’s bomb, and continued to breath of the said police officer’s chest, and continued to breath of the said police officer’s chest at one time, and interfere with legitimate performance of duties concerning criminal investigation and maintenance of public security.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of each police protocol of statement to C and D

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

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Determination of types: Type 1 of obstruction of performance of official duties (influence of performance of official duties);

2. Scope of recommendations: Imprisonment with prison labor for up to one year and four months (basic sphere).

3. Determination of sentence: In light of the fact that a defendant's act of assaulting a police officer in the course of performing one-year suspended sentence for six months of imprisonment with prison labor is not less than that of such crime, that the direct exercise of tangible power is more severe than that of such crime, and that the defendant has a power to be punished by imprisonment with prison labor due to violent crimes in the past, it is necessary to sentence the defendant more severe than that of a fine.

However, considering the fact that the defendant recognized a crime and made a mistake against the defendant, there is no previous conviction of obstruction of performance of official duties, and there is no record of punishment more severe than fines for the last 20 years, and that the defendant made a contribution for the children of the wife difficult to understand after the case, the execution of the punishment is suspended, and considering all sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, and circumstances after the crime, it is ordered within the scope of recommendation according to the sentencing guidelines.