A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On March 1, 2014, around 23:23:23, the Defendant made a false report to the 112 public telephone of the Seo-gu Government Station Seo-gu Office of Government, “I have fighting matched, together with others, I have called the Defendant to the above place.”

The defendant called to the slope D and E who was called to the above place, "the facts were not reported, but reported to find a male dynamics." The defendant was asked to get aboard the patrol vehicle to the police box, and the slope D et al. was sent to the back seat of the patrol 32, and confirmed the defendant's specific details of the defendant's report, and moved to the direction of the House C of the Government Police Station of the Gu Police Station.

However, since the above police officers did not meet the requirements for the report of disappearance as a result of confirming the contents of the defendant's report, the driver slope E of the patrol vehicle was stopped on March 1, 2014 on the road suitable for the government medical personnel of the 142 Do government-si, Cheong-si, the driver assistant E of the patrol vehicle, and let the defendant get off the vehicle.

Accordingly, the Defendant expressed that the above police officers did not interfere with their own growth and telephone connection, and expressed that “I am saw, dead, discarded, n't we am saw off,” and interfered with the legitimate execution of duties in relation to the face side of the right-hand drinking D and 112 am.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Witnesses D and E's respective legal statements;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel argued that although the defendant and his defense counsel expressed a desire to the police officer, there was no fact that the police officer first puts a drinking, and the police officer only resisted against the illegal arrest of the flagrant offender.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant was dispatched to the patrol team upon the defendant's 112 report, and the defendant was aboard the patrol team at the defendant's request.