A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four 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

On April 18, 2019, at around 16:50, the Defendant reported 112 in front of the “C” located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and demanded that the police officers affiliated with the D Zone D District of Seoul Central Police Station, who called out to the said reporter, enter the said reporter into the patrol vehicle to take aboard the said reporter in order to protect personal safety, and carried the said reporter into the patrol vehicle. Upon the removal of the said E, the Defendant plucked, plucked and pushed off the said E’s hand.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. The statements of witnesses E and G in the third protocol of trial;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning 112 reported case lists and photographs (such as photographs at the time of arrest);

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. Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code of the Social Service Order and Article 59 of the Probation Act claim that the Defendant did not assault the victimized police officer E, and that the Defendant did not interfere with the lawful performance of official duties by the police officer. However, considering the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, first of all, the police officers, including the victimized police officer, were dispatched to the police officer for the protection of G of 112 reporters. Even if considering the field situation, it was urgent situation where the Defendant could cause harm to the reporter who refused to go 112, considering the Defendant’s following speech and behavior or the details of 112 report, and thus, the Defendant’s act of preventing the Defendant from entering the police vehicle was committed several dangerous actions, such as refusing to comply with the instructions of the police officer on several occasions under the pretext of dialogue with the police officer at the rear seat of the police vehicle, and attempting to suppress the police vehicle.