A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On March 3, 2018, the Defendant: (a) at C entertainment tavern C located in C on March 3, 2018, the Defendant: (b) reported on 112, that “the son should not calculate the drinking value”; (c) was urged to pay the price and return home from F to F; (d) he was sent to the site; and (e) was urged to do so from F; (d) according to the Chin law, he would not have the mind of mind; and (e) was hined by F to be sentenced to a fine, according to the Chin law; and (e) was assaulted by F on the ground that he was notified of the receipt of a fine by the police officer; and (e) notified of the receipt of a fine by force from F; and (e) he was f of the head of F on two occasions by hand on the ground that he was compelled to do so

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. 112 reported case handling table;

1. Investigation report (related to cases of obstruction of performance of official duties);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (Attachment to video CDs and caps);

1. The relevant Article of the Criminal Act, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the grounds for sentencing choice of imprisonment, and the reasons for sentencing;

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with labor for one month to five years;

2. The scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines [the scope of the recommended sentence] shall be the basic area (six months to one year and six months) of the obstruction of performance of official duties (the obstruction of performance of official duties).

3. The Defendant, who was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the same obstruction of performance of official duties in 2014 and for fraud, had the record of having been sentenced to punishment several times due to fraud, etc. even after the sentence was sentenced as above; the warrant was dismissed on the ground that the circumstances after the instant crime were committed, such as abusiveing the police officer even after the arrest of a flagrant offender, and that there was no risk of escape even after the request for a warrant of detention was filed, and the address was not reported even after having received multiple calls from the staff of this court.