A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date of the final judgment.

Punishment of the crime

On April 20, 2014, at around 03:05, the Defendant: (a) was under the influence of liquor in front of a restaurant “C” located in “C,” and (b) was requested by the head of the police station D District of the original police station, who was reported to return home by the head of the police station E, who was called “E” and called “E” to the head of the police station E, who was in receipt of a report 112, and called “the head of the police station D District of the original police station, e.g., e., e., e., e., the head of the police station.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers on the maintenance of public order.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

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

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 136 of the Election of Imprisonment;

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment for not more than five years;

2. Application of the sentencing criteria;

(a) Determination of types: Crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties, obstruction of performance of official duties, and Category I (Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties);

(b) Scope of recommendations: Basic area, six months to one year and four months; and

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for six months, a stay of execution for two years, and 40 hours (shorted circumstances) of an order to attend a lecture, the degree of violence of which is relatively unhulled, or there is no criminal record of not less than a stay of execution for the purpose of obstructing performance of official duties (unjustifiable circumstances)