A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

except that 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

On July 18, 2014, around 22:37, the Defendant obstructed the legitimate performance of duties by police officers regarding the duty of reporting 112, on the ground that: (a) the police officer, who was a police officer belonging to the D Zone, who was called up with the report of 112 that the Defendant’s driver’s vehicle was involved in a traffic accident in the vicinity C, and requested the Defendant to move the Defendant’s driver’s vehicle from the same F; and (b) the Defendant stated that “I will move why you move, if you move, if you do not move, and if you turn off, you can see E’s face.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of each police protocol of statement to E and G;

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

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is not good in light of its circumstances, and in particular, the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is likely to be punished strictly due to the act of light of public authority and disturbing legal order, and thus, is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, there is no record that the defendant was punished for obstruction of performance of official duties, there is no record of punishment exceeding a fine, the degree of damage suffered by a police officer is not much serious, and the defendant's confession of the crime and reflects the fact that the defendant is against the defendant, etc., the punishment shall be determined as ordered by considering the favorable circumstances, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, and environment.