A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On May 31, 2018, around 04:35, the Defendant 1st floor of the building located in the Namdong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Nam-gu.

In the light of the 112 report of the contents of “blue .....” to the head of the police station affiliated with the Namdong Police Station C District of Incheon, which called the “blue ......................, the police officer’s chest was f8 cm in length and diameter 2.5 cm) and the police officer’s blue with the blue blue was threatened.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statements made to D;

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the conditions favorable to the following reasons for sentencing)

1. Scope of punishment: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one month but not more than five years;

2. Scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines [the types of decisions] crimes obstructing the performance of public duties, interference with the performance of public duties, and Type 1 (Interference with and Compelling the performance of public duties) (the scope of recommended punishment], from June to June (the basic area).

3. Determination of sentence: 4 months of imprisonment with prison labor, and 1 year of suspended sentence, the Defendant laid a dangerous object while taking a bath and pushed down the police’s chest. In order to establish a national legal order and eradicate a light of public authority, it is necessary to strictly punish the instant crime against public authority, such as interference with the performance of official duties.

However, the following circumstances are comprehensively taken into account: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects the Defendant’s mistake in depth; (b) the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime by contingently to the drunk; (c) the Defendant has no particular criminal record, other than twice suspension of indictment; and (d) the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime; and (e) the conditions for sentencing specified in the instant argument, such as the circumstances after the commission of the crime.