A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On May 20, 2018, the Defendant: (a) on the street in front of “C” located in Busan District, Busan District Court Decision 00:36 on May 20, 2018; (b) on the street, the Defendant continued to enter the border where the Plaintiff was urged to return home from the superintendent E belonging to the Busan District Police Station Down-gu, Busan, upon receiving a report of 112 that the drunk person was suffering from disturbance; (c) and (d) the Defendant took a bath to stop the said E; and (d) carried the chest part of the said E at his arms once.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning the handling of reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to field photographs, investigation reports (on-site photographs and CD attachment);

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da1248, Apr. 1,

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act for observation of protection;

1. Where the degree of violence, intimidation, deceptive scheme, or interference with public duties is minor in the mitigation area (one month to eight months) of Class 1 (Interference with the performance of public duties and coercion of duties) (in the event of a person subject to special mitigation), which is minor in the application of the sentencing criteria (the scope of a recommended punishment).

2. It is necessary to take strict measures as to the police officer's obstruction of the performance of official duties in a state of drinking, even though the defendant had been punished twice as a result of obstructing the performance of official duties, and even though he had been punished several times for violent crimes, it is necessary to take severe measures as to obstructing the performance of official duties by the police officer called out after receiving a report at the main point in drinking. However, in this case, the degree of obstructing the performance of official duties in this case is minor, the defendant's depth is divided in depth, and the defendant's age and behaviors are considered.