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 became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On May 28, 2016, at around 02:36, the Defendant was urged to return home from E at the seat and work clothes of the police officer at around 03:10 on May 28, 2016, at around 02:36, the main points of “C” located in Seopo-si B, Seopopopo-si, and the Defendant was urged to return home from E at the seat of the D District District of Seopo-si Police Station D, Seopo-si, the Seopo-si, which called the “C” and called the “C”, and the Defendant continued to avoid disturbance, and the Defendant was issued a notification poster to the police officer’s violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act (M) by voluntarily traveling the D District located in Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of investigation report (20 pages of investigation records), CD (dynamic image)-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The reason for the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act ( favorable circumstances among the reasons for the suspended sentence) is that the defendant puts a poster to take a notice disposition against the victimized police officer, and spreads the coffee, which is contained in the disposable World Cup, thereby committing the crime of this case. In order to establish the national legal order and eradicate the light of the public authority, there is a need to strictly punish the crime against the public authority, such as obstruction of the performance of the national legal order. Furthermore, in light of the fact that the defendant was issued a summary order once as a crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties and has the record of being sentenced to a fine once as a crime of damage to public goods, it is inevitable to choose imprisonment with prison labor against the defendant.

However, the fact that the defendant recognizes the crime of this case, the defendant has no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine prior to the crime of this case, the sentencing precedents in similar cases, and other cases.