A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Punishment of the crime

On July 7, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to 8 months in Seoul Southern District Court for a violation of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Offenders. On October 8, 2017, the Seoul Southern District Court completed the execution of the sentence.

At around 13:20 on December 17, 2019, the Defendant urged D and E, who are public officials in charge of welfare who work at the center located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, to pay the electric design board. However, the Defendant threatened D and E, who are public officials in charge of welfare service at the center, with the answer that “I will not pay it, and will do so later,” and “I will abandon it.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of the public officials in charge of welfare service center.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each written statement of D and E;

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, inquiry records, and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes before and after violence;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act selecting a penalty;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the ordinary concurrent crimes (a punishment imposed for the crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties against D with heavier concurrent crimes);

1. Reasons for sentencing Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes;

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: One month to ten years of imprisonment;

2. Aggravation of the obstruction of performance of official duties [Type 1] and aggravated factors of the obstruction of performance of official duties [Special Aggravation] according to the sentencing guidelines: In cases where there are many public officials who have suffered damage (the area of recommendation and the scope of recommendation] increased area, one to four years of imprisonment.

3. The defendant's decision of sentence was not only the same criminal record but also a large number of violent crimes, which led to the crime of this case without being aware of even during the period of repeated crimes, the defendant's social ties are lacking, and it is necessary to prevent the occurrence of a good victim and protect our society from the high possibility of recidivism revealed in many violent criminal records.