A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight 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

On February 21, 2019, around 05:20 on February 21, 2019, the Defendant: (a) received 112 reports on violence on the roads front of the Ccafeteria located in Northern-gu B at Port; and (b) was removed from E by the police officer affiliated with the Posi Police Station of the Pohang of the Posito Police Station, which called “I am rad. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am.).”

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of the F, G, E, and H;

1. A copy of the service log of a police box and a list of reported cases;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (to telephone conversations for reference), investigation reports (related to attachment of CCTV image data to cafeterias), investigation reports (related to attachment of J CCTV image data), investigation reports (CTV video review); and investigation reports (CCTV video review);

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for the sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on Probation and Social Service Order [Scope of Recommendation] There is no person who has a basic sphere of obstruction of performance of official duties [6-1-1-6 months] [Determination of sentence] / The defendant can have a record of having been sentenced to punishment due to violent crimes, etc. / The defendant seriously assaulted a female victim who was in a pet relationship immediately before the crime of obstruction of official duties was committed, and uses violence in such a way as he was able to walking another victim's back, and the degree of violence committed by the defendant to a police officer is not easy. In light of these circumstances, the degree of violence committed by the defendant to a police officer is not easy. In light of these circumstances, the defendant seems to have a considerable risk of re-prevention of the crime of obstruction of official duties, and there is no repayment of damage or agreement that the defendant did not reach a favorable consideration in favor of the defendant, and other circumstances that the defendant recognized the defendant's wrong, and the circumstances of this case, such as age, character and behavior, motive for the crime, etc.