A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six 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 December 6, 2016, around 03:08, the Defendant: (a) was found to have been driven by drinking to police officers belonging to the Jeju Western Police Station D District District, which was located in the Jeju Island B on December 6, 2016; and (b) was trying to leave the control site by talking the police officers belonging to the said District D District D District, “Chewing, humping, and humping.”
Accordingly, the Defendant expressed his bath to “I am dead........”, the Defendant shicked and pushed the chest of the above E with both hand and the left hand on one occasion.
As a result, the defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of duties by police officials concerning criminal investigations.
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement by the defendant in court;
1. Statement made by the police for E;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a investigative report (the result of CCTV viewing at least eight times a year);
1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;
1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;
1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Social Service Order Criminal Act [the scope of recommending sentence]: The defendant who was sentenced to a sentence in the basic area (from June to January, 1) is recognized to commit the instant crime, and the fact that there is no particular criminal history except once a fine due to the crime of destruction of property prior to the instant case is favorable.
However, for the establishment of national legal order and the eradication of the state of public authority, the crime of interference with the execution of public duties requires strict punishment, and the defendant's act of actively committing the above crime against the police officer who is legitimately performing the crackdown on the driving of drinking, is clearly recognized (Evidence No. 8). However, it is seriously against the serious crime of interference with the performance of public duties, such as making a vindication different from the facts.
It is difficult to see otherwise, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, background of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc.