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

At around 14:20 on August 10, 2016, the Defendant: (a) expressed his desire to avoid disturbance at “Dcafeteria” located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and received 112 reports thereon; and (b) expressed his desire to “I am to see the content of damage from the reporter; (c) I am to “I am to see whether I am, Chewing, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers in relation to the handling of reports and criminal investigations.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the police statement-related Acts and subordinate statutes to F;

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act under the suspended sentence [Scope of Recommendation] The sentence shall be determined as per the disposition, taking into account the following: (a) there is no basic area (6-1 year and April) of the obstruction of performance of official duties (6-1 year and April); (b) there exists no person who has been sentenced to heavy punishment exceeding the fine; (c) there is no record of being sentenced to heavy punishment; (d) there is no history of being sentenced to heavy punishment; and (e) Defendant’s health status (which is being treated as severe disorder) and life-related relationship (beneficiary)