A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On June 12, 2016, at around 18:00, the Defendant: (a) was under the front stairs of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Western C 202 on June 12, 2016; (b) was under the influence of alcohol by the Defendant, and was asked the victim questions about the details of the report from the victim E assistant belonging to the Seodaemun-gu Police Station D police box sent to the said site after receiving 112 report by the Defendant’s noise; (c) the Defendant was under the influence of drinking in front of the front door of the said building; and (d) the Defendant was under the direction of the victim, who was asked of the details of the report from the victim E assistant belonging to the Seodaemun-gu Police Station D police box called to the said site; (d) the Defendant was under the direction of the victim, who was under the influence of drinking in front of the first floor of the said building; and (e) the Defendant was under the direction of the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of 112 reports by the victim who is a police officer.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning police statements to E;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 136 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. The reason for the sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (a favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing under the following) of the suspended sentence [the scope of recommendation] that there is no basic area (6 to 1 year and 4 months) of the obstruction of performance of official duties (the special person) [the decision of sentence] of the basic area (6 to 1 year and 4 months] of the obstruction of performance of official duties [the decision of sentence] of the defendant recognized the crime of this case and divided his mistake, there is no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine, and there is no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine, and it appears that the act of this case was caused by contingency while drinking, and the punishment is determined as ordered in consideration of various sentencing conditions shown in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior