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

At around 11:00 on July 10, 2015, the Defendant: (a) was drunkly under the influence of alcohol at the 528 Espo-ro 3 complex management office of the Maspo-ro 1128 Espo-ro, Mapo-ro, Mapo-ro; (b) “A person under the influence of alcohol is standing in an apartment complex”; (c) the police officer B and C belonging to the Anspo-gu Police Station of the Anspo-gu, Anspo-ro Police Station called the Defendant in receipt of a 112 report, recommended him to return home after breaking the Defendant, and (d) the Defendant expressed his bath that “Spo-gu Mapo-gu, Mapo-gu, Mapo-gu, Mapo-gu, Mapo-ro, Mapo-gu, Mapo-ro, Mapo-ro, Mapo-ro, fla-gu.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of each police protocol protocol against D, B, and C;

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. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order;

1. The scope of recommendations shall be limited to the category 1 (Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties) and the basic area (6 to 1 year and 4 months) (special person) of the same category;

2. The age, character and conduct, environment, details of the instant crime, circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., of the crime, which is contrary to the decision of sentence has been bad, and has been committed for the same kind of crime.