beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On February 15, 2020, at the convenience store located in Daegu-gu B, Daegu-gu, 2020: (a) two persons, such as the police box D, etc. belonging to the Daegu-nam Police Station C police box called up after receiving 112 reports that “nick and fluored,” arrive at the reported place; and (b) witness the situation where the Defendant was fluoring the Defendant’s disease on the surface of the road, which was on the tables located outside the above convenience store, with a view to gathering a smaller and plastic disease on the road; and (c) the above circumstance was defective in the Defendant’s violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act (waste) against the Defendant; and (d) the above circumstance was fluoring the Defendant’s complaint, stating that “this fluor is ched with a knch, and fluord with a fluor, fluor, fluor, a fluor of a bitch.”
Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of 112 reported cases and notification disposition by police officers.
Summary of Evidence
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the defendant's legal statement E and each police statement report (suspect's speech and behavior) on investigation as a service log to D;
1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 136 of the Election of Imprisonment;
1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;
1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act is deemed to be a disadvantageous sentencing ground, taking into account the following: (a) the Defendant’s assaulted a police officer to obstruct the performance of official duties; (b) the Defendant’s liability is heavy; and (c) there was a large number of records of crimes of violence; and (d) the Defendant again committed the instant crime even though he/she had been sentenced to a fine for obstruction of performance of official duties around 2015; and