A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six 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 May 18, 2015, the Defendant: (a) at a drinking house located in B second floor at Seopopopo City B on May 23:29, 2015; (b) the Defendant, upon receiving a report on the Defendant’s drinking and drinking a disturbance, she took a bath to the police officer D who belongs to the Seopopo Police Station C commander of the Seopo Police Station called up and called up, and took a bath to the police officer; (c) continuously took a dogbbbbs to the police officer; and (d) continuously took the breabs to the police officer, thereby hindering the Defendant’s legitimate performance of duties in relation to criminal investigation and maintenance of public order.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the police statement law to D;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act ( considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing following the suspended sentence);

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on Probation;

1. Determination of types: Type 1 of obstruction of the performance of official duties (influence of the performance of official duties);

2. Scope of recommendations: Imprisonment for six months to one year and four months (basic area).

3. Determination of sentence: The execution of sentence shall be suspended, and probation shall be ordered to prevent recidivism, taking into consideration the following: six months of imprisonment, one year of suspended sentence, one year of probation, and one year of imprisonment, and the criminal defendant has committed a crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, taking into account his or her past criminal records of violence and several criminal records of obstruction of performance of official duties; the criminal defendant has no past record of punishment heavier than fines for the last thirty years; the criminal defendant recognizes the crime and reflects wrong facts; and the criminal defendant again commits such crime;