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 January 20, 2019, at around 03:19, the Defendant: (a) committed assault, such as, on his hand, flabing the e-mail of the above F, flabing the e-mail, flabing the e-mail of the Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, a domestic violence report from the Kimpo-si B apartment C, and committing assault to F, i.e., “S., flab, flabing to another family house, flab, and coming from home.”

Accordingly, the defendant, who is a police official, interfered with legitimate performance of duties concerning reporting domestic violence of E and F.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. E statements;

1. Working log and the list of reported cases;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the spot and damaged photographs;

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

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on probation and community service order;

1. Scope of punishment by law: Not more than five years of imprisonment;

2. Scope of recommendations according to the sentencing guidelines: From six to one year and six months (decision of type] of the obstruction of the performance of official duties: [No. 1] the obstruction of the performance of official duties/performance of duties [the scope of recommendations and recommendations] basic area, six months to one year and six months.

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for six months and suspension of execution for two years, a crime of obstructing performance of official duties needs to be severely punished as an act that circumvents legitimate exercise of public authority and undermines the function of the State’s legal order.

In this case, the defendant's assaults against the police officer who was dispatched to his own wrong, and the nature of the crime is not good.

However, it appears that the defendant had the attitude of recognizing and opposing the defendant's mistake, and that there was no record of criminal records of the same kind or of a suspended execution or more severe punishment, etc. are considered as favorable circumstances to the defendant, and various other circumstances revealed in the arguments, such as the defendant's age, character, character, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime in this case, and circumstances after the crime.