A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight 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

[Criminal Power] The Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for six months on August 27, 2013 and two years on September 4, 2013, which became final and conclusive on September 4, 2013.

【Criminal Facts】

On June 14, 2015, at around 23:20, the Defendant: (a) provided an employee with an “EM store” front of the “EM store” in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si; (b) provided an employee with an issue of payment of the drinking value, and (c) provided an instruction on the procedure for handling complaints regarding the drinking value from G to the police box affiliated with the police box of the Kimpo-si Police Station, dispatched to the site after receiving 112 a report, and paid the drinking value; and (d) provided the said G with an desire to spathize it while working in the workplace; and (c) provided the said G with the desire to “New-si, spathy, spathy,” and assaulted G at one time at the bar of G by drinking.

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. The police statement concerning G;

1. Photographs of parts damaged by body;

1. Previous records: Application of a reply letter of inquiry, such as criminal records, investigation report (report on the results of confirmation before disposition, report on the results of confirmation, and period of suspension of execution);

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

2. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act ( considered as follows):

3. Probation and Social Service Order Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code (A defendant asserts to the effect that the defendant was in a state of mental disorder under the influence of alcohol at the time of the above crime. However, according to the records, although the defendant was found to have drunk at the time of the above crime, it does not seem that the defendant's ability to discern things or make decisions is weak or lost, the above assertion is not accepted. The above argument is not accepted) reason for sentencing [the scope of recommendation] [the obstruction of performance of official duties.]