A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

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

Punishment of the crime

around 00:45 March 17, 2018, the Defendant sent a car to the Assistant F belonging to the Seoul Gwanak-gu Police Station E District, Seoul, which was called upon 112 reporting that the Defendant does not drive a car on the road in front of Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City;

Does a public official be heard if the citizen speaks;

Hah’s bath was expressed as “Irh’s Chewing son,” and assaulted by both hand on three occasions the chests of the F in question, and one time by hand on one hand.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on 112 reporting processing affairs.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

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

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of punishment for the crime;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution [Scope of Recommendation] The basic area (from June to one year and six months) (the person subject to special sentencing) of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act does not exist (the decision of sentence: imprisonment for a period of four months, suspension of execution for a period of two years). The crime obstructing the performance of public duties, such as the instant case, requires strict efforts to establish the law and order of the State, to eradicate the light of the public authority, and to ensure that the defendant has a number of records of being punished for violent crimes, including interference with the performance of public duties, are against the recognition of and against the crime of this case. In addition, the defendant is sentenced to the same sentence by taking into account the sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act as stated in the argument of this case.