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.

Criminal facts

At around 02:30 on April 28, 2020, the Defendant was urged to have a traffic accident observed at the front of Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, and reported 112 telephone calls to return home from D Assistants belonging to the Seoul Gangnam Police Station C District of the Seoul Gangseo-gu Police Station. B, “I am flick???? I am flick at the time, and am to the effect that “I am flick after a red signal was cut off,” “I am flick?”, “I am flick?”, “I am flick?”, “I ambling the body of the above E”, “I ambling the body of the Defendant,” and knishing the flick of the Frane affiliated with the same global belt.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of each police protocol protocol made to F and E to the Acts and subordinate statutes ;

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

1. Where an act of assault and intimidation was committed against multiple public officials who perform the same duties as an ordinary concurrent act, multiple crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties are established according to the number of public officials who perform official duties, and where the above act of assault and intimidation was committed in the same opportunity at the same place, and it is assessed as one act under the social concept, multiple crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties are crimes of conceptual concurrence.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505 Decided June 25, 2009, etc.). Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it is reasonable to view that each crime of obstruction of performance of official duties against police officers E and F committed by the Defendant was committed with the same opportunity at the same place, and that there was an ordinary concurrence relationship.

The prosecutor indicted the criminal facts of this case as substantive concurrent crimes, and the court, without any changes in the indictment, will punish the crimes of this case as substantive concurrent crimes.