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 became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On April 13, 2016, around 03:25, the defendant sent a plaque to the scene on the part of Goyangyang-gu C and 5 level D, Goyang-gu, Goyang-gu, Goyangyang-gu, and on the part of the business owner's notification, the defendant sent it to the scene.

Since then, the Defendant had lost and lost visibility to the above slopeF and continued to wear a sound to see the visibility, and recommended him to return home from the slopeF, but he expressed his bath to “I am feas, I am feas, I am feas, I am a drinking to the slopeF.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of 112 reports and the maintenance of order by police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement concerning F;

1. A written statement;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing the place of criminal and the 112 Reporting Cases;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as the “justifiable circumstances”) of the suspended sentence;

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

2. Application of the sentencing criteria [Scope of Recommendation] The basic area (six months to one year and four months) of the obstruction of the performance of official duties (the obstruction of the performance of official duties).

3. Determination of sentence: A sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and a suspended sentence for two years is that the crime of this case is committed against a police officer who was under the execution of official duties by taking a bath and drinking, and the nature of the crime is not good, and there is a need to strictly punish the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties in order to establish the state's legal order and eradicate the light of public authority, and that the defendant did not make any effort to recover from damage to a police officer who was under the execution of official duties is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflected, that the defendant's health is not good due to high blood pressure and anti-abstinence for the old age of 73 years, and that the defendant was finally punished by around 1988.