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 September 29, 2019, at around 22:05, the Defendant reported domestic violence-related 112 in front of the Daegu Northern apartment Cdong, and attempted to board the patrol vehicle, and was asked questions about the circumstances E belonging to the D District Unit of the Daegu Gangseobuk Police Station D District, and sought to get on the patrol vehicle from E to ask questions about the reasons why he want to board the patrol vehicle. However, the Defendant: (a) if the frithm police is frith; (b) if the frithm in friths in friths in frith; (c) if the friths in friths in friths in frith; and (d) if the friths in friths in friths in friths in friths, the Defendant frithed the frith in frith of E, and friths in frith, by drinkinging it.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statement to E;

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines [decision of type] the obstruction of performance of official duties [Type 1]/ the obstruction of performance of official duties [the scope of recommendation field and recommendation range] there is no person subject to the coercion of official duties] (the scope of recommendation field and recommendation range] basic area, six months to one year and six months;

2. The defendant who has been sentenced to a sentence of punishment interferes with the legitimate execution of official duties by assaulting a police officer in the course of performing his duties.

However, the sentencing conditions stated in the records of this case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, family environment, and circumstances before and after the crime, are equally considered in light of the fact that the Defendant recognized the crime, the police officer sought the Defendant’s preference, the fact that the victimized police officer seeks the Defendant’s wife, the most supporting the Defendant’s wife and two ancillarys, etc.