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

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

Criminal facts

On August 30, 2018, around 00:30 on August 30, 2018, the Defendant interfered with the progress of the patrol, such as continuing to stop the front of the patrol 24th, in front of the call-gu D convenience store located in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and preventing the taxi from moving. The Defendant explained that the 112-report was sent to the police zone G, the Gyeong, the Gyeong, and the Gyeong, who called the 112-report and instructed the Defendant to stop returning to Korea, while explaining that the Ha was “it is prohibited from passing off the knife of the knife of the knife of the knife of the knife of the knife of the knife of the knife of the knife of the knife.”

Accordingly, the Defendant was assaulted by the police officer to arrest the Defendant, and the police officer was aboard the patrol vehicle, and the police officer was boomed by the front side of the police officer H, and again, the Defendant was boomed by the front side of the police officer G with his head and the front side of the police officer G with his head.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of G and H;

1. 112 Reporting case management table;

1. Investigation report (verification of patrol booms and video images);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes as a result of CD reproduction;

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. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Circumstances unfavorable to the reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act: The crime of this case is heavier than the responsibility to obstruct police officers from performing their duties by exercising violence.

Although police officers recommended the defendant to return home, they interfere with the progress of patrol cars and assault police officers. The degree of violence and interference with the execution of duties is not easy.

The favorable circumstances are against the defendant when committing a crime.

Except as sentenced to a fine once, particular.