A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for 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 05:20 on July 8, 2016, the Defendant: (a) 112 reported that he drinks and fights in front of the Dju shop located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Seoul Special Metropolitan City Gwangjin-gu) and her drinking in front of the Dju shop; and (b) her drinking in front of the Dju shop located in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and her drinking, she was boomed as he/she would be tightly and her abrupted to the F’s hand, and used his/her her son and her son and her son.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of duties by police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Investigation report (Analysis of On-the-spot CCTV video data) on the police interrogation protocol F of the accused in each legal statement of witness F, G, and H on the witness F, G, and H, and application of each CCTV video Act and subordinate statutes;

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

1. It is difficult to view that the defendant's act of asserting that the defendant did not constitute assaulting a police officer who performed his/her duties, and since the police officer failed to notify a different principle or committed an excessive violation of using electric shock devices in the course of arresting the defendant, the defendant's act does not constitute obstruction of performance of official duties.

2. Determination

A. (1) As to the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, "in case of the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties" under Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Code does not refer only to the case where a public official actually performs an act necessary for the performance of official duties, but also to the case where a public official is in the position of performing official duties.

Therefore, it is inappropriate to separate the process of performing their duties and discuss the commencement and termination of their duties individually according to the nature of their duties, and there are cases where it is reasonable to understand the process of performing their duties as a series of duties by combining various kinds of acts.

Supreme Court Decision 99Do383 delivered on September 21, 1999