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 March 7, 2019, at around 22:37, the Defendant: (a) received a 112 report from the C Parking Lot located in the Haju City, “A person who was requested to take a drinking test from a policeman belonging to the Kuju Police Station D District Unit of the Kuju Police Station, who was called out, and refused to do so; (b) stated, “I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I am the head of E, and interfere with a police official’s legitimate performance of duties concerning handling reports and criminal investigations.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Report on the occurrence of the case;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of damaged victims;

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

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment for one month to five years;

2. Scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines [decision of type] of the obstruction of performance of official duties or coercion of duties (special sponsers): In cases where the degree of violence, intimidation, and deceptive scheme is insignificant (the scope of the recommended area and the recommended sentence] mitigation area, and one month to eight months of imprisonment.

3. Determination of sentence: In addition to the sentencing factors as seen earlier, consideration has been given to the disadvantage that the defendant interfered with his official duties by exercising physical violence against the police officer's body, and the defendant has already been issued a summary order concerning the crime of refusing to measure alcohol that the defendant could have tried simultaneously with the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties. The crime of this case is deemed to have occurred by the defendant under the influence of alcohol, the fact that the defendant seems to have suffered contingently due to the occurrence of the crime of this case, and the fact that the defendant has no record of suspended sentence of imprisonment or more, etc.,