A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four 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

around 21:40 on June 16, 2019, the Defendant, at the convenience store “C” located in Sinpo City B, has a dispute with an employee.

12 Absted to return home from E by the police officer of the Jeonnam Police Station, who was dispatched to the scene after having received a report, and was urged by the police officer assigned to the police station of the Jeonnam Police Station, to read “this frings, frankly at the place of business, and fring one another at the place of business,” and assaulted the chest part of the above E on the sole floor of the hand.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning 112 reports.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

1. A written statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to fire-proof reports (the confirmation of CCTV at the C convenience point), CCTV-capfs;

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

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: One to five years of imprisonment;

2. Scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines (decision of type) of the obstruction of performance of official duties: [Type 1]/ the coercion of official duties (special sponsor): Where the degree of violence, intimidation, and deceptive scheme is minor (the scope of the recommended area and the recommended punishment), mitigation area of the sentence, and one month to eight months of imprisonment.

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for four months, suspended execution for one year (the fact that the police officer acknowledges and speaks against the police officer, the fact that there is no same kind of crime, the degree of force exercised is minor, and the damaged police officer does not want the punishment of the defendant, consideration of all the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments, including age, character and conduct, family relationship, circumstances before and after the crime);