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

Punishment of the crime

On January 27, 2017, at around 02:55, the Defendant, at the main point of “D” located in Kim Jong-si, who was sent to the scene after receiving the report of 112 by the owner of the goods, expressed that he was asked for a petition to listen to the details of the report, etc. from F in the circumstances belonging to the Kim Jong-dong Police Station, Kim Jong-dong, who was dispatched to the site by the owner of the goods, and assaulted F’s entrance portion as his hand at one time.

As a result, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning the handling of 112 reports.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement concerning G and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (related to attaching photographs on the parts of damage);

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. The reason for sentencing of selective sentence of imprisonment [the scope of recommending punishment] The reason for sentencing of selective sentence of imprisonment [the scope of recommending punishment] There is no person [the person who has been subject to special sentencing] in the basic area (six months to one year and four months] [the person who has been subject to special sentencing] [the decision of sentence] in 8 months, the defendant has a history of serving not only one sentence for interfering with the execution of official duties, one fine for interfering with the execution of official duties, but also several criminal punishments including suspended sentence for violent crimes.

Moreover, even before committing the instant crime, the Defendant not only committed the instant crime without being aware of even during the period of probation, but also was punished by a fine for committing an indecent act during the period of probation before committing the instant crime.

The Defendant stated to the effect that the police officers dispatched upon receipt of the report 112 from the investigative agency have reached the crime by treating them as persons who have harmed, but according to the witness’s statement, the police officers’ performance of duties excessive or irregularly cut off.

It does not appear.

In light of the above Defendant’s military force, sexual conduct, and circumstances leading up to the crime, even though the degree of assault is not serious, the police officer’s desire to take the Defendant’s seat, the Defendant’s mistake is against the Defendant, and the Defendant’s imprisonment is imprisonment.