A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

At around 04:10 on May 23, 2015, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol in the front of the restaurant called the “D” located in Sinpo City C, and the Defendant, upon receiving a report, solicited the Defendant to return home to the Defendant by the police officer belonging to the Gyeonggi Military Police Station E District, who called the site, and was on board the G patrol vehicle to get out of the 112 reported call, followed the Defendant to get out of the said patrol vehicle to get out of the said patrol vehicle to get out of the Defendant, and prevented the Defendant from operating the said patrol vehicle by opening the doors of the said patrol vehicle, and continuously prevented the Defendant from moving the patrol vehicle by getting out of the front of the patrol vehicle.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the F's 112 reporting processing duties as a police official.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. The CD;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. The relevant statutory provisions on criminal facts, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act regarding the choice of punishment, the reason for sentencing of sentence of imprisonment [the scope of recommendation] There is no basic area (6 to 1 year and 4 months) of obstruction of performance of official duties (the scope of obstruction of performance of official duties) [the person who has been sentenced] [the defendant] The defendant still has a consistent explanatory statement that it is difficult to understand that the defendant still sees the video images, the act of intentionally obstructing the movement of patrol in front of patrol in front of patrol at investigation agencies and court, even though the defendant was confirmed to have intentionally interfered with the movement of patrol in front of patrol at the investigative agencies and court, and even if he/she had confirmed it, he/she had been sentenced to a suspended sentence for four months as of September 12, 2014, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence for the crime of this case on September 20, 2014.

Therefore, the punishment is determined as ordered.