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 November 10, 2017, the Defendant: (a) reported on November 10, 2017, at the main station located in the Seogu Seo-gu, Daegu; (b) reported to the effect that “I am home by a passenger without paying the drinking value; and (c) demanded E to return home by a police officer affiliated with a police box of the relevant police station D police station, who called out after having received a 112 report; (d) carried out a bath, pluck up the police officer’s left side inspection; and (e) pluck up the police officer’s face, and then pl up the police officer’s face.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers on the prevention and investigation of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of police statement protocol to E;

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

1. On November 3, 2016, the Defendant for the reason of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, even though he/she was sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving on November 11, 2016) from the Seo-gu District Court Branch of the Daegu District Court (Seoul High Court 1867) on November 3, 2016, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (the date the judgment becomes final and conclusive is November 11, 2016), the Defendant committed the instant crime during the suspended sentence, and the crime interfering with legitimate performance of official duties is deemed to be bad and bad.

However, in light of all the circumstances such as the fact that the defendant's mistake is recognized, the defendant does not commit a second offense, and the defendant resisted against him, the fact that the police officer agreed with the above police officer (the police officer does not want the punishment against the defendant), the fact that the above main owner wants the defendant without wanting the punishment against the defendant, the fact that the defendant is a contingent crime, there is a family member and there is no economic situation, the above suspended sentence is excessive, the fact that the above suspended sentence is attempted, the family and the branch want the defendant's preference to the defendant, the degree of damage, the background of the crime, the degree of the crime, the degree of the crime, and the records of the crime.