A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Criminal facts

On June 21, 2017, around 16:35, at the defendant's house located in Busan Shodong-gu B, the Defendant saw a sound with neighboring residents by having a dispute with neighboring residents. On June 21, 2017, the Defendant abused the flaps of the above D with double hand by using the flapsing flaps, which was called to the scene upon receiving a report 112, in order to verify the circumstances against the Defendant.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the maintenance of police officers' order and crime control.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of the photographic 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. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following favorable circumstances required for the reasons for sentencing);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on the Observation, etc. of Protection, etc. of Social Service Order;

1. The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment for not more than five years;

2. Scope of a recommended sentence on the sentencing guidelines: Imprisonment with prison labor for up to eight months [the types of decisions]; the mitigated element of a type 1 (Interference with and Force of Duties) [Special Sentencing] that interferes with the performance of public duties; the mitigated element of violence, intimidation, deceptive scheme, or the degree of interference with public duties is minor; the mitigated area of the recommended range of punishment [the scope of the recommended range of decisions and the recommended range of punishment]; one month or eight months;

3. The Defendant, who was under the influence of alcohol in a residential area, sent a report to the police officer who tried to check the site after being called for a heavy noise with neighbors.

In light of the background of the instant crime or the attitude of the Defendant at the time of the instant crime, the Defendant’s fault is not somewhat weak.

However, in light of the strength of the assault inflicted by the defendant against a police officer, it is important to maintain the degree of interference with official duties.

the police officer who was assaulted does not want the punishment of the defendant.

This point is considered in light of the circumstances favorable to the defendant, and the argument in this case.