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.

Criminal facts

On January 3, 2015, the Defendant, at around 21:10, engaged in the so-called “Seman’s case” and “Iskman’s right to know” while under the influence of alcohol to E, who belongs to the Seoul Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City D District Police Station D District Group, which dealt with 112 reports due to property damage and other damage, etc., and received a request from the above E to “Iskman’s case,” and “Iskman’s case,” “Isn’s case,” “Isn’s case,” “Isn’s case,” and “Isn’s case,” and “Isn’s body, who arrested the suspect of this case, such as the above property damage and other damage, shall be sealed in both hands, and received a request from the above E that I would interfere with the police’s duty, and thereby interfere with the police’s legitimate arrest of E, such as assaulting the above E in good body.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of each police protocol of statement to E;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 136 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. The reason for the sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended sentence [Scope of Recommendation] Where the degree of assault and threat is minor in the mitigated area (one month to eight months) of obstruction of performance of official duties (special mitigations) [decision on the sentence] of assault and threat (decision on the sentence] of the Defendant’s mistake is divided and reflected in depth, and the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime by contingency while under the influence of alcohol, etc. are favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant has been punished for the same kind of crime even before, and the defendant has not agreed with the police officer in question even until now, and the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is related not only to the function of the law and order of the state, such as nullifying legitimate exercise of public authority, but also to the safety of the general public.