A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. On January 29, 2017, at around 04:45, the Defendant interfering with his/her duties, “on the main point, at the victim D (n, 50 years of age) located in Gyeyang-gu Incheon Gyeyang-gu, the Defendant shall, without any justifiable reason, take into account any kind of cry, internal, and address the victim D (n, e.g., 50 years of age) who was requested by the injured party to pay the drinking value.”

The victim interfered with the main business of the victim by force for about 30 minutes, such as taking a bath with a large sound and threatening the victim.

2. The Defendant who interferes with the performance of official duties does not calculate the amount of alcohol while avoiding disturbance, such as threatening D, at the date, time, place, etc. described in paragraph 1.

“ 112 reported and dispatched to the site, the Incheon Gyeyang Police Station E (a police box) sent out from F to the police station affiliated with the Incheon Gyeyang Police Station E (hereinafter “F”) at one time, and the F’s face was removed from F.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the prevention, suppression and investigation of police officers' crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to D or F;

1. G statements;

1. Application of the receipt statute

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business), Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with the performance of public duties) and the choice of imprisonment for each crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

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. There is no crime of Category 1 (Interference with Business) for the reason of sentencing in Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act for the protection and observation of the protection and the sentencing of Article 62-2, and there is no crime of Category 2 (Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties) for which there is no basic area (for June to one year and six months) [the scope of recommending punishment] [the scope of recommending punishment] for the basic area (for June to one year and six months), for the first category (for interference with the performance of Official Duties), for the basic area (for six months to one year), [the standard for processing multiple crimes] for six months to two years [the standard for sentencing] for six months], for six months, and for two years under suspension of execution, the defendant was punished by a fine for interference with the business on September 13, 2016, as well.