A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On March 21, 2017, the Defendant: (a) reported domestic violence 112 to the effect that the Defendant was “her husband’s violent violence” while on March 21, 2017, 16:50, Sungnam-gu Da Apartment apartment 107, 103, and the Defendant’s home fighting at the Defendant’s home; and (b) called “her husband’s violent violence.”

C. The 112 police officers' legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of report, etc. was obstructed, such as assaulting the E's chest at one time by drinking.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. A H statement;

1. Notification of each damaged part photograph, each 112 report-related department;

1. Application of CCTV-recording CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

1. Determination as to the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the following favorable circumstances)

1. Summary of the assertion

A. At the time, the Defendant was only booming the Defendant’s arms by a police officer who opened the door, and did not assault the police officer E by taking a bath or drinking to the police officer.

B. In addition, since police officers at the time exercised physical power first to the defendant without disclosing their status or the reason for visit, the execution of their duties is unlawful, and the acts of the defendant against them do not constitute interference with the execution of official duties.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the fact that the defendant expressed desire to police officers at the time, assaulted police officers E by drinking is sufficiently recognized, and the defendant expressed desire to police officers lawfully performing official duties, and assaulting police officers E constitutes a crime of interference with the performance of official duties, and each of the above arguments by the defendant and the defense counsel are without merit.