A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six 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

On September 11, 2016, 01:05, the Defendant: (a) at the No. 01:05, the taxi engineer and the taxi fare of the Defendant were in a trial room; (b) on the ground that: (c) the E of the Jeju Police Station D District of the Police Station, which was called upon the Defendant’s 112 report, listened to the details of the report from the Defendant; and (d) the police officer first returned the taxi engineer, and (e) the police officer was sent back the taxi, and (e) the police officer was able to stop the above police officer, and (e) the E’s shoulder part and the shoulder part were 2 times in the shoulder, and the F’s part, which was prevented, was assaulted by the Defendant two times in his Roman.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning 112 report handling duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Investigation report ( telephone conversations including expert witnesses);

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for photograph explanation;

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with the punishment stipulated for the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties against F with heavier punishment);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel on the claim of mental suffering from mental illness under Article 62-2 of the Probation Criminal Act asserts that the punishment should be mitigated because the defendant was in a state of mental suffering by being drunk at the time of committing the crime in this case.

In light of the background and method of the instant crime, the circumstances before and after the instant crime, and the Defendant’s statement attitude, etc., which were duly adopted and examined by the court, even if the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

Defendant

The above assertion by the defense counsel is not accepted.

The following circumstances are the reasons for sentencing.