A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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 22:00 on March 4, 2019, the Defendant: (a) stated that “C” restaurant in front of the Gyeonggi-do, the South-west Police Station E box, which was reported by 112 and heard both the statements on the spot while she was in dispute with D with an acting driving engineer; (b) stated that “F is immediately harmful to the police officers of the Haak-gu, the Haak-gu, the Haak-gu, the Haak-gu, the Haak-gu, the Haak-gu, the Haak-gu, the Haak-gu, the Haak-gu, the Haak-gu, the Haak-gu, the police officers of the Gyeonggi-gu, the Haak-gu, the Haak-gu, the Haak-gu, the Defendant took a bath that “F is wanting to kill and die,” and assault F on several occasions.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement concerning G and F;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning violence compact photographs;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime concerned;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act [Scope of recommendations according to the sentencing guidelines] The area of aggravation of performance of official duties (one year or four years in the event that there are many damaged public officials) (one year or four years in the event that there are many damaged public officials) / The crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is a crime that is the basis of the rule of law makes it difficult to exercise the public authority that is the basis of the rule of law and the damage is returned to the majority of the public.

The defendant expressed a desire to victimized police officers and expressed a drinking face.

In light of the attitude and degree of the force of the defendant's use, the case belongs to a relatively heavy case among crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties.

However, the fact that the defendant is recognized as committing a crime, the defendant deposited a certain amount for the recovery of damage by the damaged police officers, and the defendant.