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 this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

At around 23:40 on September 27, 2018, the Defendant used the Defendant’s 112 report that “A vehicle parked on a bicycle in the apartment,” and used the Defendant’s personal information and the circumstances of the case to ask the Defendant to the police officer in charge of the instant police officer, who was called “A vehicle was parked in the apartment,” the Defendant used the Defendant’s flab, and used the Defendant’s flab to read “A vehicle was flad with the Defendant.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers in relation to 112 reported handling duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning police statements to 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 ( considered as follows):

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act [Scope of Recommendation] No person [No person in charge of the obstruction of performance of official duties] [Determination of sentence] [Determination of sentence] The fact that a police official performing legitimate duties makes an insulting speech and uses violence, taking into account the same kind of crime records, etc., although the liability for the crime is not weak, the fact that there is no criminal history since 2005, there is no criminal history after the fact that the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances leading to the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the punishment is determined as per the order.