A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight 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 November 19, 2019, at around 23:35, the Defendant: (a) received a report on 112 at the front of the Seoul Jung-gu Bukdong, Seoul, and served a police officer affiliated with D, who was issued a notice of penalty payment due to a violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, and committed assault by the Defendant by keeping the said D’s shoulder and d’s ebbbbbling.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on the control of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. E statements;

1. Criminal investigation reports (Attachment to a notice of penalty payment), and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports ( telephone conversations for reference E);

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

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on probation and lecture attendance order;

1. The scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines [the range of the recommended sentence] of the obstruction of performance of official duties or the coercion of official duties (the scope of the recommended sentence and the recommended sentence], the basic area of the recommendation [the scope of the recommended sentence], six months to one year and six months;

2. The defendant who was sentenced to punishment exercised force while taking a bath against the police officer who was dispatched after receiving a report on the illegal parking problem. The crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is not against the crime of impairing the function of the State by nullifying legitimate exercise of public authority.

On January 18, 2011, the Defendant had a record of criminal punishment on several occasions, including the previous convictions punished by the suspension of execution of imprisonment due to the obstruction of performance of official duties, and committed a crime repeatedly without restricting drinking habits despite the Seoul Family Court (2019B699)’s decision on the protective disposition on June 28, 2019.

However, the defendant recognized the crime of this case, and other circumstances that form the conditions for the argument and sentencing as shown in the record, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances after the crime, etc.