A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four 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

At around 20:00 on May 6, 2019, the Defendant, while taking alcohol in front of the gold basin 193, the head of the police station B district located within the sowing Police Station B, called the Defendant to the effect that “I am home, I am hume if I am hume, I dume I dume I dume I dume I dume I dume I dume I dume I dume I dume I dume I dume I dume I dume I dume I dume I dume I dume C.”

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement regarding C;

1. Investigation report (Hearing statements by victim police officers and checking CCTV images);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing the 112 Reporting Case Handling Table;

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The use of violence against police officers who perform official duties in sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is very poor, but it appears that the degree of physical damage by police officers is relatively weak, confession and reflects into crimes, contingent crimes, absence of the same kind of power, age and character and conduct of the defendant, and all of the sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as punishment as ordered, shall be determined by taking into account.