A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On April 5, 2018, the Defendant, at the “C” restaurant located in Kimhae-si B, at around 02:20 on April 5, 2018, and at the “C” restaurant located in Kimhae-si B after receiving 112 reports, was requested to pay food costs from the D District Unit of the Police Station in the Kimhae-si, Kimhae-si, and to return home, but the Defendant failed to pay the food costs from F, thereby receiving a penalty notice from F in the form of a non-exclusive charge.

Accordingly, the Defendant: (a) expressed his bath as “this dog”; (b) threatened a slope E with drinking; and (c) assaulted the F’s face to the escape of F in order to continuously catch F’s breath; and (d) assaulted F’s face.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. G statements;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

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

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Based on the reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the conditions favorable to the reasons for sentencing as set forth below), the sentencing conditions set forth in the instant case, such as the age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., as set forth in the following circumstances, and the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines set forth by the Supreme Court sentencing guidelines (the basic area of the sentencing guidelines set forth in Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution of Duties ( June - June 1): the scope of the recommended sentence set forth in the sentencing guidelines for the commission of sentencing of the Supreme Court.)

The favorable circumstances: The defendant's confession, the defendant's mistake, the defendant appears to have committed the crime of this case on a contingent basis, and the degree of damage therefrom is not much serious: It is necessary to impose severe punishment on the crime of interference with the execution of public duties in order to establish the state's legal order and to eradicate the light of public authority.