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.

Criminal facts

At around 01:00 on March 16, 2018, the Defendant reported on 112 the purport that he was drunkly drinking in the fourth floor of the Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan City B market, and that he was fluoring a fluoral tablet, and requested a slope D belonging to the Seoul Gangseo-dong Police Station C Zone C District to return home to the Defendant, the Defendant provided a bath theory that he was called “fluoring, chewing,” and used the fluorial fluor of the said D with a fluorial hand.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Each statement of E, F and G preparation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports ( relative to a reporter);

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 136 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as the "justifiable circumstances") of the suspended sentence;

1. The scope of recommendations according to the sentencing guidelines (decision of types of punishment), the obstruction of performance of official duties, the obstruction of performance of official duties, the aggravation of the first category (special person) and mitigation factors: None of the relevant factors (the scope of recommendations): Six months to one year and six months; and

2. The defendant who has been sentenced to a sentence shall assault a victimized police officer in the course of performing his/her duties and interfere with his/her legitimate execution of duties, and the liability for such crime is not minor;

In addition, the defendant repeated a crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, even though he/she had been subject to criminal punishment several times, including criminal punishment.

However, the circumstances favorable to the defendant include the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and did not focus on the degree of the use, etc.

In addition, in comprehensive consideration of the defendant's age, character and conduct, motive and background of the crime, means and result of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., various sentencing factors specified in the records and arguments in this case, the punishment as ordered shall be determined.