A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On June 6, 2016, at around 21:35, the Defendant: (a) reported 112 on the front side of the use of a name tag located in 13-12, an ancient-gu, Seojin-gu, Taejin-gu, Seoul, to the effect that “the father uses and threatens a deadly weapon”; and (b) prevented the Defendant, who was a policeman belonging to the Seoul District Party of the Seoul Police Station, who was called up, attempted to assault E, his/her his/her his/her his/her his/her father, from taking advantage of his/her her her son’s son, at one time the lower part of the left eye of the said D.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the prevention, suppression and investigation of police officers' crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made in relation to E, F, D, and G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each damaged part of the photograph;

1. Relevant Article 136 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (Consideration of favorable circumstances among the following grounds for sentencing);

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act and Article 59 of the Act on the Protection, Observation, etc. of Social Service Orders and the observation of protection;

1. The basic area (referring to six months to one year and four months) of the sentencing criteria shall interfere with the examination of the sentencing criteria (the scope of recommended punishment) and the execution of official duties;

2. The crime of obstructing the performance of official duties is not good in that it circumvents the exercise of governmental authority, the defendant has been punished twice as violent crimes, including suspended execution, and the defendant has not made any effort to recover damage.

The favorable circumstances include the fact that the defendant recognizes the crime of this case, that the degree of violence is relatively minor, and that the defendant has no record of punishment for the same crime.

In addition to the above circumstances and other circumstances, the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, and the various sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the circumstances after the commission of the crime, shall be determined as per Disposition.