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 November 26, 2015, the Defendant: (a) avoided disturbance due to the drinking value on the “C amusement shop” located at Jeju-si B, the Defendant refused to get home from the police officer affiliated with the D police station of the Jeju-dong Police Station, who was called up after receiving the report of the Jeju-si 112 at the Jeju-si 2, to get home from the police officer belonging to the D police station of the Jeju-dong Police Station; (b) caused the Defendant to go home from the patrol car when getting off from the patrol car to the front of the yellow fat; (c) obstructed the front of the said E to get off the patrol car; and (d) assaulted the E in order to get home back from the patrol car.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the prevention and patrol of police officers who wear a uniform.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Report of investigation (Attachment of a black stuff image data), application of six photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

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 of the community service order;

1. The scope of the recommended punishment on the sentencing criteria [the scope of the recommended punishment] and the basic area (six months to one year and four months) (the prevention of interference with the performance of official duties and the coercion of official duties) shall be limited to the category 1 (the prevention of interference with the performance of official duties).

2. The crime of interference with the decision-making of a sentence of punishment is an offense that undermines the function of the State by nullifyinging the legitimate exercise of public authority, and thus requires strict punishment for the defendant, the defendant refused to leave the patrol vehicle and prevented the victimized police officer from carrying out other patrol duty for about 40 minutes, as well as committing the crime of this case by exercising the direct force on the body of the victimized police officer. In light of the above, the defendant should be strictly punished.

However, the defendant is the confession of the crime of this case, the defendant has no record of the same crime, and the age, sex, environment, and crime of the defendant.