A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

At around 00:05 on November 17, 2019, the Defendant continued to see that “Arreshed, frighted, interfered with his duties,” a police officer, who was a police officer of the Goyang Police Station D (a police officer of the Goyang Police Station), sent out after receiving a report 112 that “Arreshed, frightd, frightd, interfered with his duties,” and bread, “Arhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

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. The police statement concerning F;

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

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

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

1. The need to strictly punish police officers for the reason of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Probation Criminal Act, the fact that the Defendant committed a crime under the influence of alcohol and again committed a crime even though he/she was punished several times, and the fact that he/she used physical force again while insulting police officers even though he/she was punished as a crime of insulting police officers.

However, the sentencing conditions of Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., shall be determined as ordered by considering the following factors: the defendant's recognition of and reflects the crime; there is no record of punishment in relation to obstruction of performance of official duties; and