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

On March 14, 2020, at the entrance of the Incheon Bupyeong-gu B parking lot, the Defendant: (a) reported on March 14, 2020, at around 02:00, 112, “I am home from the police officer D, a police officer belonging to the Incheon Samsan Police Station C District District of the Incheon Samsan Police Station; (b) I am home from E; (c) I am out of E; (d) I am going home from C, a police officer; and (d) I am back to D with their head car; and (e) I am I am, while I wanting to am, I am back by hand; and (e) I am to get the police officer to walk back to the back of the patrol line with the intention of obstructing the arrest of a flagrant offender due to the obstruction of the performance of official duties.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning the handling of 112 reports, and damaged the objects used by public offices, thereby harming their utility.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of E and D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning destructive photographs against boomers;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 141 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes (Mutual Crimes of Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties);

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the prosecutor appears to have prosecuted the crimes of obstruction of the performance of official duties and the crimes of damage to public goods under Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act as an ordinary concurrent relation.

However, since the judgment of the number of crimes belongs to the court's exclusive authority, the court should judge the number of crimes without being bound by the prosecutor's judgment, and it is recognized as it is for the criminal facts charged by the ordinary concurrent crimes. However, even if the legal evaluation on the number of crimes is applied to substantive concurrent crimes, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's exercise of his/her right of defense may be seriously disadvantaged. Thus, the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties ex officio without