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

At around 00:45 on November 16, 2019, the Defendant received 112 report from “C” in front of “C” in the Pakju City B, and demanded the police officer E to return home from “C,” who belongs to the D District District Unit of the Pakistan Police Station, the Defendant obstructed the Defendant’s legitimate execution of public duties as to the handling of the 112 reported case by the police officer walking the above E one time due to drinking, “I want to die. I want to die? I want to do so? I want to do so? I want to do so? I want to do so? I want to do so? I want to do so? I want to do so? I want to do so? I want to do so.” The Defendant interfere with the Defendant’s right chest of the above E in drinking, and interfered with the proper execution of public duties by the police officer walking the above E’s 112 report.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing the 112 Reporting Case Handling Table;

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

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines [decision of type] the obstruction of performance of official duties [Type 1]/ the obstruction of performance of official duties [the scope of recommendation field and recommendation range] there is no person subject to the coercion of official duties] (the scope of recommendation field and recommendation range] basic area, six months to one year and six months;

2. Determination of the sentence of obstruction of the performance of official duties needs to be strictly punished for a crime detrimental to the function of the State by nullifying the legitimate exercise of public authority.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognizes all of the crimes of this case and reflects his mistake, and that there is no record of punishment for the same kind of crime, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

In full view of the aforementioned circumstances and the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, various circumstances that constitute the sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, including the circumstances after the crime, etc., the punishment as ordered shall be determined.