beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On September 14, 2015, at around 17:15, the Defendant reported that the Defendant did not pay accommodation expenses and did not leave the house in front of the Dats located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and took a bath to F of the police box affiliated with the Seoul Gangseo-gu Police Station Embox, who called “I ambling” without any justifiable reason, “I ambling, I ambling, I am to ambling,” and ambling at once, respectively. In order for F to stop the Defendant, the Defendant followed F’s ambling with the Defendant’s son’s kbling at the bottom.
Accordingly, the defendant assaulted police officers F, thereby obstructing police officers' handling of 112 reported cases, protecting people's lives, bodies, and property, and performing legitimate duties related to the arrest of flagrant offenders.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statements made to F and G;
1. The relevant statutory provisions on criminal facts, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act on the selection of punishment, the reason for sentencing of sentence for sentencing of imprisonment [the scope of recommendation] : The scope of sentence compared with the applicable sentence and the recommended sentence in the basic area (from June to April): June 1, 200: the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties committed in June to April 1, 200 is a crime that has impaired the function of the State by nullifying legitimate exercise of public power, and thus, it is necessary to strictly punish the police officer in order to establish the legal order of the State and eradicate the light of the public authority. The defendant stated that the police officer first committed an illegal act before mentioning the black picture. The defendant made a statement as if he did not pay accommodation expenses or pay a 112 report and sent it to the police station, and the crime of this case was committed on the ground that the officer reported it to the police station even if the police officer had not been dispatched, and the defendant merely failed to dispatch the police officer on the ground that it was bad.