A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On August 18, 2019, at around 10:30, the Defendant: (a) reported 112 before the Seo-gu Seo-gu Seo-gu Seoul Special Guard; and (b) expressed the Defendant, who was on the back seat of the Daejeon Special Police Station B of the Daejeon Special Metropolitan City Police Station B, and called the Defendant, who was on the back seat of the taxi, at the seat of the seat of the si-gu Special Metropolitan City Police Station B of the Daejeon Special Metropolitan City Police Station B, and told the Defendant, who was on the back seat of the si-gu Special Metropolitan City, and expressed his desire to drink, and intending to go on a taxi and want to go on the taxi, and assault C at once by drinking the left part of the si-gu Special Metropolitan City.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties regarding the handling of 112 reported cases by police officers, prevention of crimes, investigation and suppression of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes for reporting internal accidents;

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

1. The defense counsel's assertion of the defense counsel under Article 62 (1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution refers to the purport that the victim's execution of duties was not legitimate at the time of the instant case. Thus, the defendant's behavior recognized in criminal facts caused a situation in which the protection of the defendant's body or taxi driver's property may be deemed necessary (Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers), and the police officer can take appropriate measures against the defendant who is likely to cause harm to himself/herself or another person's body or property under the influence of alcohol (Article 4 (1) 1 of the same Act). In full view of all the circumstances known by the record, the police officer's performance of duties at the time was within the limit prescribed in the above Act.

Therefore, the defense counsel's assertion is not accepted.

The reason for sentencing is the type 1 of obstruction of the performance of official duties (in case of obstruction of the performance of official duties).