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 October 22, 2014, at around 05:16, the Defendant interfered with the police officer’s legitimate report and patrol, such as a slope F belonging to the Happa of the Happa Police Station, and a slope G, who was called out after receiving a report on the disturbance in the state of Busan, in order to prevent the patrol from departing from the Happa when boarding the Happa, after he solicited the Defendant to return home, and obstructed the police officer’s legitimate report and patrol, such as interfering with the police officer’s movement of approximately 20 minutes by cutting the arms between the window of the vehicle and cutting the arms onto the Happa.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of the police statement concerning F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing the 112 Reporting Case Handling Table;

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. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (a favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing below)

1. The defendant's summary of his/her assertion is merely a threat of force, and it does not constitute obstruction of performance of official duties, since it does not assault or threaten.

2. The crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties is established by assaulting or threatening a public official performing his/her duties. Here, assault includes not only the exercise of direct tangible power but also the indirect exercise of tangible power against a public official.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3584 Decided October 29, 2009) In this case, the Defendant’s act of obstructing the progress of patrol vehicles by gathering the arms between the patrol vehicle’s knife and the windows of the patrol vehicle was indirectly exercised the force against the police officer, and thus, the crime of obstructing the performance of duties is established. Thus, the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion is rejected.

The reason for sentencing is that the defendant is divided into his mistake, the degree of violence and obstruction of public duties is not serious, and there is no criminal record of the same kind or suspension of execution or more.