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 of the final judgment.

Punishment of the crime

On August 18, 2014, at around 18:47, the Defendant: “D’s restaurant in the original city C’s “D” restaurant in the original city B, “D,” with the report of 112, was subject to the control from F in the circumstances belonging to the original city police station E zone, and slope G, the Defendant she saw the Defendant to the said background F, F, and G with the large interest of “Iskhsh sh, sh, sh, and sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh s

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Application of C’s written laws and regulations

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

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment for not more than five years;

2. Application of the sentencing criteria;

(a) Determination of types: Crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties, obstruction of performance of official duties, and Category I (Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties);

(b) Scope of recommendations: Basic area, six months to one year;

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for four months, a stay of execution one year, 24 hours in the lecture of violent therapy (fluoral circumstances), reflect on any particular criminal history, and a contingency crime under the influence of alcohol (fluoral circumstances) is not good for committing an offense of obstruction of performance of official duties;