A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On March 11, 2018, the Defendant: (a) sought a recommendation from B to return home to B in the vicinity of the Home Stacker’s Home in Daegu-gu merchant Dong, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, to select a route; (b) he was boarding the taxi and became a water center of the Daegu Suwon-gu Police Station located in 78 at the gu Suwon-gu, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, to go to the Public Security Center; and (c) on the same day, the Defendant continued with B at the 112-round 20:20, while continuing to go to the Public Security Center of the Daegu-gu Police Station, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, Seoul-gu, upon receiving a report from B, on the 1112-site from B, on the grounds that “the taxi expenses are calculated and returned to Korea,” and “the head of the Singu, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, Seoul-gu, Police Station Ethn,” and “the head of the Gu,” “the head of the Gu,” shall take a drinking.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of 112 reports by police officials and the maintenance of public order.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statements made to B and F;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

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

1. The scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines [the scope of the recommended punishment] and the basic area (six months to one year and six months) (no person subject to special sentencing] shall interfere with the performance of public duties;

2. Circumstances unfavorable to the determination of sentence: The Defendant’s act of assaulting a police officer wearing a uniform under the influence of alcohol does not change the quality of the crime. Even though the Defendant was indicted for an insulting act by taking a police officer around around 2016, the Defendant’s act of insult was committed against the police officer, and at the same time, the circumstances favorable to preventing the instant crime: the Defendant recognized the Defendant’s act of offense. The Defendant’s health appears to have contributed to the occurrence of the instant crime. The Defendant is identical to the Defendant.