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 July 1, 2015, at around 19:40, the Defendant: (a) received a report of 112 that there was a person who would avoid a disturbance of alcohol in front of the ‘C’ restaurant, and used the mobile phone in possession of the Defendant, who heard the speech that he would avoid a disturbance from E and security guards, and return to home, from E and security guards, to the front of the 112 patrol police box; (b) prevented the Defendant from operating the 112 patrol vehicle by carrying the mobile phone in front of the 112 patrol box; and (c) assaulted the Defendant from walking the right side of E, who prevented him from driving the 112 patrol vehicle once.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to photograph cell phones;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on Probation and Social Service Order [Scope of Recommendation] There is no basic area of obstruction of performance of official duties (6 to 1 year and 4 months), and there is a same kind of force [decision of sentence]. The punishment is repeatedly committed during his taking advantage of the fact that the form of obstruction of performance of official duties of this case is relatively minor, and the punishment is seriously against the crime of this case is suspended by imposing various dispositions to prevent recidivism only once in consideration of the fact that the punishment of this case is imposed to prevent recidivism.