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

On September 6, 2020, the Defendant received a report of 112 from the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu B apartment C, the Defendant’s residence, on September 21:58, 2020, that “A person with drinking knife and knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife).”

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Details of 112 reported cases;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning telephone statement listening;

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. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act and Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc.;

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: One to five years of imprisonment;

2. The scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines [decision of types] of the obstruction of performance of official duties: [Type 1] No person shall be subject to the obstruction of performance of official duties or coercion of official duties [the scope of recommended areas and recommendations] (the scope of recommended areas and recommendations] basic area, six months to one year and six months.

3. Determination of sentence: A sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for six months and suspension of execution for two years, and the nature of the crime in this case is not weak in light of the law and the result of the crime in this case; the police officer who suffered damage still desires to strong punishment against the defendant; and the defendant has a record of being punished for a fine for the same kind of violent crime in the past.

On the other hand, however, the fact that the defendant is divided into and against the crime of this case, there is no record of punishment for obstruction of performance of official duties, and there is no record of crime exceeding the fine.