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 December 9, 2019, the Defendant: (a) 20:18, on the road in front of the Daejeon Pungdong Bndong, and (b) was urged by the Defendant to return home from the circumstances D, etc. surrounding the Daejeon Pungdong Police Station C District of the Daejeon Pungdong Police Station, which called “a person who has increased grings, must die and go through,” and assaulted the said D head by getting off his mother and her mother used by the Defendant at one time.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers in relation to the 112 Report Handling.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Investigation report in a document prepared by the E (CCTV video clorization business);

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

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 act of blocking or obstructing by violence of legitimate execution of official duties on the grounds of sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is an act which causes damage to the public interest to be achieved through the execution of official duties, and at the same time, it constitutes a serious crime as destroying the legitimate authority of the State action and legal order.

At the time of the instant case, the Defendant: (a) received a report from the police officer to the effect that he did not have any intrusion; and (b) received a recommendation for returning home from the police officer, and (c) took the inside of the police officer as stated in its reasoning, and assaulted him. In light of the details and method of the assault, the illegality of the crime is not easy

In addition, since the defendant committed the crime of this case again even though he had been punished for the crime of bodily injury in the past, the possibility of criticism is high.

However, it is advantageous to the fact that the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case, the defendant has no record of being punished as obstruction of performance of official duties in the past, and there is no record of being punished exceeding the fine.