In the case of obstruction of the performance of official duties and damage to public goods, the decision shall be made in eight months.

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Power] On July 26, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years on July 22, 2019 in the Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court for a special injury, etc., and the said judgment became final and conclusive on February 22, 2019.

"2019 Highest 290"

1. On April 7, 2019, around 09:00, the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties by opening the back door of the patrol police box, which opened the front door of the patrol police box, and obstructed the police officers’ legitimate performance of duties concerning the prevention, suppression, and investigation of crimes by force by force, by putting the front door of the patrol police box belonging to the police box of the Seosan Police Station, where the Defendant was urged to return home continuously from the police officers called up after receiving D’s 112 report, his mother, who was the mother of C, who was called up, on April 7, 2019.

2. The Defendant: (a) was arrested as a flagrant offender committing the obstruction of performance of official duties at the location specified in paragraph (1) at the time and place; (b) took the patrol post and moved to E police box; and (c) took a bath, “Chogene,” and “nicker,” and took a look at a safety net installed between the back seat and the front seat inside the patrol vehicle, thereby impairing its utility by walking the safety net installed between the front seat and the front seat.

around 22:08 on January 26, 2019, the Defendant reported to the 112 reporting center that “A police officer would not want to kill and protect the police officer,” and made a false report to the police officer in charge, stating that “A police officer would not want to kill and protect the police officer.” On the same day from 21:33 to 0:29 of the same month, the Defendant filed a false report by the said method and sent the police officer three times of dispatch.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of 112 reported cases by police officers and the protection of people's lives, bodies, and property by fraudulent means.

Summary of Evidence

1. Previouss before judgment: Criminal history records, inquiry reports, and criminal investigation reports;