A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On September 12, 2015, at around 22:10, the Defendant reported to 112 the entrance of the taxi on which he was on board, to find a ground door-to-be located in the office of the Chuncheon private taxi association near the D K-to-kak practice room located in Chuncheon City, Chuncheon. However, the Defendant reported to 112 the entrance. The Defendant explained to the effect that the Defendant could not solve the Defendant’s civil petition against the Defendant at the site upon receiving the report, and that the F of the background and F of the Chuncheon Police Station E zone belonging to the Chuncheon Police Station E zone, which called the Defendant at the site. The Defendant expressed to the said police officer “I are the police, Dop, this Dop,” and the Defendant expressed to the effect that “I will take the son over twice the son of the said F, and that the said G was about to control the Defendant’s defect, and three times the son’s assault.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statements concerning G and F;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as the grounds for sentencing), which is a superior concurrent crime with the reason for sentencing, and is not subject to the sentencing guidelines. There is a need for strict punishment for the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties in order to establish the state’s legal order and eradicate the light of the public authority. There are unfavorable circumstances such as the Defendant already has been punished several times due to violent crimes.

On the other hand, there are extenuating circumstances such as the confession of each of the crimes in this case and the mistake is divided, each of the crimes in this case appears to have been committed contingently, and the defendant has no record of criminal punishment after 195.

The above circumstances are as follows.