A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four 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

The Defendant, on September 6, 2017, at around 02:55, sent to the slope E belonging to the D Zone, who was sent to the site after receiving a report from the customer before the Kabter, “C” main store located in the Chungcheongnam-dong, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

Is the police;

In this regard, I expressed the desire to “A.......” and sent a part of E in drinking once.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to F and E;

1. Report of investigation (Evidence No. 10) and the application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on documents attached thereto;

1. Relevant Article 136 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

2. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution;

3. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act for community service work.

1. The scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines [the types of decisions] and the scope of the punishment [the scope of the recommended punishment [the scope of the punishment [the scope of the recommendation], the mitigated area, and the imprisonment for not more than eight months, where the degree of violence, intimidation, deceptive scheme, or interference with public duties is insignificant;

2. The crime of obstructing the performance of official duties, such as the instant case, is a crime that undermines the functions of the State by nullifying the legitimate exercise of public authority, and thus, requires strict punishment to establish national legal order and eradicate the light of public authority.

The defendant has a record of being notified of a fine for the same crime, and has a record of being sentenced to the suspension of the execution of imprisonment for the same crime.

[The favorable circumstances] The Defendant appears to be against the view of committing the instant crime.

Defendant seems to have lost self-defense while drinking and to have committed the instant crime contingently.

The extent of the Defendant’s assault or obstruction of public duties itself was relatively unhued.

I seem to appear.

The defendant is not subject to punishment heavier than a fine, since he was sentenced to the suspended sentence in 199.