A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Records] On November 2, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on the 10th day of the same month by obstructing the execution of official duties in the Seoul Eastern District Court, which became final and conclusive on the 10th day of the same month.

[2] On February 5, 2018, the Defendant: (a) at the store “D” on the first floor of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Building C, Seoul on February 5, 2018; (b) on the ground that the Defendant demanded that the slope G, who belongs to the Seoul Suwon Police Station F box, sent out to this place, interfere with the Defendant’s business, demanding that the slope G, who was in charge of drinking drinking, spawd and spawd with E, take a bath at the shop “D”; and (c) on the ground that:

N. N. L. L. L. L. L. police officer

싸가지 없는 놈 아 ”라고 고함을 지르고, 손으로 그의 뺨을 1회 때리고, 발로 그의 허벅지를 수회 걷어찼다.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the police officer's 112 report processing and legitimate execution of duties concerning the protection of people's physical property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. E statements;

1. A copy of the working place, on-site ctv photographs;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Investigation report (Attachment to the judgment of the same kind), inquiry report about criminal history and application of Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Reasons for the sentencing of Article 136 (1) (Selection of Imprisonment) of the relevant Article of the Criminal Act on criminal facts [the scope of recommendations] The basic area (from June to January), the basic area (the interference with the performance of official duties and the coercion of duties) [no person subject to a special sentencing] [the sentence] unfavorable: The defendant was faced with the face of the police called out at the time of the instant case, facing the face of the police who was called out of the bread house at the time of the instant case, and was faced with the insulting speech, without any reason. The defendant was arrested in the act in the act of committing the crime of this case, and there was no significant obstacle to the police's execution of official duties while walking on the bridge of the police, and there was no reason to believe that the defendant interfered with the execution of official duties.