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 September 20, 2014, at around 01:40 on September 20, 2014, the Defendant, upon receiving the Defendant’s 112 report that the proprietor belonged to the drinking value at the C main station located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Defendant expressed a desire to be called “sprink” on the ground that he did not go to his speech to E, and that he did not go to the slopeF, and used the beer’s disease on the tables in front of E and F.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each statement of E, F and G;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. Clear that the omission in Article 40 of the Criminal Act in the applicable provisions of the Criminal Act in the indictment for ordinary concurrent crimes is obvious;

[In the case of assault and intimidation against multiple public officials who perform the same official duties, multiple crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties are established according to the number of public officials who perform official duties. The above assault and intimidation were committed in the same opportunity at the same place, and are assessed as one act under the concept of society, the crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties are crimes of conceptual concurrence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505, Jun. 25, 2009).

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, which prevents police officers from performing their official duties in the manner that the police officers dispatched after being reported by the defendant 112 by the fact that the crime of this case belongs to the drinking value at the main point, is committed, and the damage to police officers was not recovered, is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, it seems that the defendant recognized the crime, the damage of the police officers seems to be practically nonexistent, and the defendant thought that the police officers dispatched after receiving their report are receiving only the change of the main police officers without properly hearing their horses.