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 September 10, 2014, the Defendant was arrested as a flagrant offender at the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C District District, and was under investigation as a flagrant offender on the charge of assault against others, and was arrested at the drinking house, and was under investigation, the Defendant attempted to get out of the urine while viewing seven police officers, such as female police officers D, etc., while trying to take out the urine, and the Defendant attempted to take out the son while looking back from the urbing of the son’s clothes belonging to the said district group, and obstructed the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties concerning the suppression of crimes and investigation.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (CCTV analysis);

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as the "justifiable circumstances") of the suspended sentence;

1. The scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines [the scope of the punishment for the obstruction of performance of official duties]. The punishment for the obstruction of official duties shall be limited to the punishment for the obstruction of official duties. The punishment for the obstruction of official duties shall be limited to six months to one year;

2. In order to establish the legal order of the country where the sentence was rendered and eradicate the light of the public authority, there is a great need to punish the Defendant for the crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties in this case, and the circumstances leading to the instant crime or the content of the instant crime, which are disadvantageous to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime, and the Defendant committed the instant crime by contingency. The Defendant seems to have committed the instant crime by contingency, as well as the fact that there was no history of punishment for the same crime, and that there was no history of gross criminal punishment of suspension of qualifications or more, and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, background and consequence of the instant crime, circumstances after the crime, and attitude in this court, etc., shall be determined as ordered by the disposition.