A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six 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

On May 7, 2016, at around 22:00, the Defendant received a 112 report that “Defendants and D are wraped” in Gyeyang-gu Incheon Gyeyang-gu, and received a guidance on the receipt, etc. of criminal case damage from the police officer, who belongs to the Incheon Gyeyang Police Station E zone E zone unit, dispatched to the site.

The Defendant: (a) committed assaulted the F in his own voice, such as “severed, Chewing,” and assaulted the F by, in his hand, the following: (b) the KON, which was carried by the F, unfolding the f, so as to unfold the fated f, so that the KON, which was carried by the F, can fall off.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers related to the prevention, suppression and investigation of crimes related to the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. A report on investigation;

1. Application of statutes on photographs of damage;

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. In order to protect legitimate performance of official duties of the State with reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Act and to establish a sound social order, the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties shall be determined as ordered by taking full account of the following factors: (a) disadvantageous circumstances such as the fact that the defendant needs to be punished for violent crimes; (b) the fact that the defendant confessions and reflects the crime; (c) there is no record of punishment for the same kind of crime; (d) favorable circumstances such as the fact that the degree of tangible force exercised by the police officer is relatively minor; and (e) other factors of sentencing as shown in the arguments of this case, including the defendant’s age