A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On October 14, 2017, the Defendant, at around 23:11, entered the convenience store located in Pyeongtaek-si B, and obstructed the employees from calculating the price of the goods, and received 112 reports from the police officer, who was in charge of the damage to the D District of Pyeongtaek-gu Police Station, called “I am home from E, I am unable to do so, I am back to the end of the accident, I am am unable to do so, I am again, and assaulted the part of E of the above Gyeong-si.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the prevention and suppression of police officers' crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of the F and G respective Acts and subordinate statutes;

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 (within the scope of the recommended sentencing criteria) of the suspended sentence;

1. Application of the sentencing criteria [Scope of the recommended punishment] and interference with the execution of public duties: The basic area (fence of the performance of public duties and coercion of the performance of duties).

2. The sentence shall be determined in light of the details and details of the crime committed by the sentence; the fact that the victimized police officer wants to be punished by the defendant; the fact that there is no record of punishment exceeding the fine; and other various sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, sex, criminal administration, environment, family relationship, and circumstances after the crime.