The punishment of the accused shall be determined by four months of imprisonment.

except that the sentence shall be imposed for a period of one year from the date the judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On December 21, 2016, at around 17:30, the Defendant, while drinking at the Myeon Office located in the preceding North Korea-gun C, expressed the disturbance to the public officials belonging to the above Myeon Office, who were public officials belonging to the head of the above Myeon Office, who were public officials belonging to the head of the Myeon Office, expressed the disturbance at a large level, and obstructed the Defendant’s legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of civil petitions by the public officials of the office if he / she saw the disturbance as a horse, and she dump dump of the above E at one time with the floor of the dried hand, he / she interfered with the performance of duties by the public officials of the office.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to F and E;

1. The defendant's defense counsel shall make an argument to the effect that he/she seems not to have performed his/her official duties;

In the case of interference with the performance of official duties under Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Code, the "execution of official duties" shall not only refer to the case where a public official actually performs an act necessary for the performance of official duties, but also include the case where the public official is in the working state for the performance of official duties.

In accordance with the nature of the duties, it is inappropriate to separate the process of performing the duties individually to discuss the commencement and termination of the duties individually, or there are considerable cases where it is reasonable to grasp as a series of duties a series of acts comprehensively including various kinds of acts (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do9919, Jan. 15, 2009, etc.). In this case, E was under the process of performing duties as the head of the D industry, while performing duties as the head of the D industry.

In addition, E has abstract and concrete authority to maintain the order of the Myeon office as a public official belonging to D to the extent that it does not exercise the power to force a person who is subject to disturbance at the Myeon office.

I would like to say.

Therefore, the defendant's act of assaulting E in performing the above official duties constitutes an act interfering with the execution of official duties.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime and Article 136(1) of the choice of punishment.