A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six 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

On March 21, 2014, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 2 million due to damage to public goods by the Daegu District Court on March 21, 2014. On March 28, 2014, the Defendant served a summary order of KRW 301 on March 28, 2014, and reported 112 times in total to the police to the effect that “I see that I am drinking, I am frith, I am, and I am am am am off, I am am am am off, I am am am on the right side of the above E in drinking,” and “I am am am, I am am am off, I am am am off, I am am am am on the right side of the above E in drinking.”

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

1. Photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report (12 report, receipt and handling slip, and related summary order);

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor concerning the crime;

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

1. Scope of recommendations according to the sentencing guidelines: Not more than eight months of imprisonment (the category of crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties, obstruction of performance of official duties, obstruction of performance of official duties, and mitigation area (where the degree of violence is insignificant);

2. The defendant shall be sentenced to the same punishment as the order, taking into consideration the following circumstances: the defendant is a contingent crime in the course of making a decision on the sentence; the details of the crime in this case; the circumstances after the crime in this case; the age, character and conduct, environment and other circumstances shown in the arguments in this case