A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight 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

Around 08:52 on September 18, 2019, the Defendant, upon receiving a report of 112 to the effect that there was a disturbance with C, and received a removal from E from the police officer belonging to the Chuncheon Police Station D District Police Station, which was called the Defendant, expressed that he would have been urged to return home, and that “the Defendant reported the inside of son” to the police officer E, and assaulted the victim’s part of the victim’s hand at one time.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

1. A written statement of C and F;

1. Application of the Act and subordinate statutes on Investigation Report (Attachment to Blue Stacks and Video CDs);

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. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code of the Order to Provide community service and attend lectures are as follows: (a) the Defendant took care of the crime of this case from the invasion to the police officer, and subsequently took care of him; (b) the Defendant led him to assaulting the neck of the victimized police officer by hand; (c) the Defendant led him to the crime of this case on the second trial date after completing counseling with a state appointed defense counsel; (d) the Defendant led himself to the confession of the crime of this case on the second trial date; (c) prior to this, the Defendant tried to justify the act of the victimized police officer’s failure to memory under the influence of alcohol; (d) the police officer did not have any proper apology; (d) the Defendant did not go against the crime of this case on 13 occasions, including two times of suspended sentence; and (e) the Defendant led to his attitude to the confession and reflect the crime of this case; (e) the degree of assault committed by the victimized police officer cannot be deemed to be sufficient; and (e) the Defendant’s previous criminal records and execution of the Defendant’s punishment.