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

On February 2, 2019, the Defendant: (a) reported in front of Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, on the 112 report, that “Adoz scam scam scam scamscamscamscamscams; (b) tried to move the Defendant, using D’s scamscamscamscamscams to the back seat of the patrol car 34 in order to have the Defendant safely returned to the back seat of the patrol car; (c) and (d) assaulted the inside part of D on two occasions.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (act of a suspect, hearing of witness's statements);

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 (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order;

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for up to five years;

2. The scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines [decision of types] that the person concerned has no obstruction of the performance of official duties or coercion (type 1) (the scope of recommending punishment] (the scope of recommending punishment), six months to one year and six months (basic area).

3. The crime of this case committed by the defendant under the influence of alcohol and obstructing the performance of official duties by assaulting the police officer who rescues himself/herself at the time of drinking. The crime of this case is considerably poor in light of the circumstances, methods, attitudes, etc. of the crime.

In particular, even though the defendant was sentenced to a fine for the same crime, he/she again commits the crime of this case, and the responsibility for the crime of this case is more severe.

However, the fact that the defendant recognizes his mistake and reflects, the fact that the defendant seems to lead to an contingent crime under the influence of alcohol, the fact that the police officer did not cause serious results, such as the injury, and the fact that it exceeds the fine.