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

On May 19, 2015, the Defendant: at around 00:30 on May 19, 2015, 112, the Defendant: (a) stated that “I may have a penalty issued by drinking disturbance” to the Defendant’s daily behaviors, i.e., the head of the Busan Police Station E-district of the Busan Police Station, called “I may have a penalty issued by drinking disturbance if I f can have a disturbance; and (b) took a bath to the F in his hand; (c) put the shoulder of the said F in his hand above the upper part of the said F; (d) put the part of the said F in his second part over the upper part of the said F in his hand with his hand, she takes a bath at a slope that prevents him; and (e) she takes a bath to the slope that prevents him; and (e) she takes a flab by scing the fage of the said G; and (e) put the part of the F F in his hand with his hand.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the police officers' legitimate performance of their duties on 112 reported handling affairs.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The statement of each police officer made to F and G;

1. A H statement;

1. Application of statutes on photographs of damage;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime concerned;

1. Where an act of assaulting or threatening multiple public officials who perform the same duties as prescribed in Articles 40 and 50 of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes Act (a punishment stipulated for the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties against more severe F) is committed, multiple crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties are established according to the number of public officials who perform official duties, and where the above act of assault and intimidation was committed at the same place with the same opportunity at the same place, and it is evaluated as one act under the social concept, multiple crimes of obstruction of official duties are in a relationship of conceptual concurrence.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505 Decided June 25, 2009). 1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor as a matter of course on June 25, 2009

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act ( considered favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing following the suspended sentence);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order;

1. The sentencing criteria applicable are different in this case because they failed to present the processing criteria for the ordinary concurrent crimes.