A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that 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 03:00 on February 7, 2020, the Defendant: (a) was drunk at “C cafeteria,” which was operated by the Defendant, and was under the influence of alcohol at “C cafeteria,” and, (b) was fluencing the disturbance, the Defendant expressed the Defendant’s desire to “C cafeteria, at the time of the police, at the time of the weather, at the time of the flucing of the franc,” to the police box belonging to the YY that was dispatched to the site after receiving 112 reports; (c) was slicking the flab of the above E; and (d) the F of the police box affiliated with the same box was sleeped; and (e) the Defendant took the flucing of the flab; and (e) took the flab of the f’s blab by talking the f.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of the E, F, and G;

1. A report on investigation (attaching an on-site photograph, etc. taken immediately after the arrest of the suspect);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the 112 Reporting Case Handling List;

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. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is that the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, took the same words as the facts of the offense at the restaurant operated by the Defendant, and committed the instant crime by failing to comply with the demands of the police officers dispatched after receiving the 112 report, and the nature of the offense is not good, and the degree of violence and interference with public duties is not easy, and the Defendant did not receive any accusation from the victimized police officers.

However, there are many cases where the defendant committed the same offense with his mistake, and there is no criminal history against the defendant, and the defendant appeared in the trial process of this case, such as the age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, family relationship, and circumstances at the time of the crime.