A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four 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

피고인은 2018. 9. 30. 22:30경 부산 연제구 B에 있는 ‘C은행 연산동지점’ 앞 도로에서 D(68세)이 운전하는 E 영업용 택시에 승차하여 경남 양산시 서창동 방면으로 진행하던 중, 피고인이 운전석 등받이 아래 부분을 발로 찼다는 이유로 위 D과 말다툼을 하게 되었고, 이에 D은 부산 금정구 오륜대로 17-1에 있는 '부곡3치안센터' 앞 노상에 위 택시를 정차하고 112 신고를 하였다.

Around 22:55 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) stated that the slope G belonging to the Busan F District Police Station of the Busan F District, which was dispatched after receiving the report of the above D-D 112 on the street in front of the Public Security Center, “whether the said G is a criminal within the country” was used to listen to the statement of the Defendant and D; and (b) assaulted the said G at one time by hand.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each protocol concerning the examination of the suspect against the defendant;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. Application of the G’s written Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (i.e., the grounds for the suspended sentence)

1. Where the sentencing criteria apply [Scope of recommending punishment] the category 1 (Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties and Compelling of Duties) in the mitigation area (one to eight months), (special mitigation persons), the degree of violence, intimidation, deceptive scheme, or obstruction of official duties is insignificant;

2. In light of the fact that the defendant who was sentenced to the sentence has led to the confession of all the crimes and has a depth of his mistake, in 99, the crime of this case seems to have occurred by contingency during his commission, the fact that the damaged police officer is the wife against the defendant, and other factors such as the defendant's age, career, etc., in consideration of the fact that the crime of this case was committed in the 999 and the criminal history has no record of criminal punishment.