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 a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On March 25, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of five million won by obstructing the performance of official duties by the Seoul Northern District Court on March 25, 2016, and was punished twice more by obstructing the performance of official duties and violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act.

On September 7, 2017, at around 00:27, the Defendant: (a) extracted to the extent that he was turfed by the Defendant, who was called “C” hotel capacity located in Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul; and (b) on the ground that he was called the Defendant, the police box affiliated with the Seoul Jongno-gu Police Station D, Seoul, Police Station D, which was called the Defendant, for the reason that he was called the Defendant to pay the drinking value and return home, he would have been turfed one time to the face of the above E; and (c) as a matter of drinking, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of public duties of the above E on the prevention, suppression and investigation of crimes by taking the chest part of the above E once.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement protocol with respect to E;

1. A statement prepared by the F;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant Article 136 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Sentencing Criteria for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act: Crimes obstructing the performance of official duties, obstructing the performance of official duties, Type 1 (Obstruction of and coercion of duties), the basic area, the Defendant’s fine by obstructing the performance of official duties, etc. from June to June 1, 200, the Defendant was punished once as a result of the suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor, and there was a history of punishment subject to a punishment by a fine on several occasions for these crimes.

On the other hand, the defendant recognized the crime of this case.

The same sentence as the order shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the characteristics of the instant crime, the degree of tangible records committed by the Defendant, and other conditions of sentencing, such as the age, sex, family relation, records of the instant crime, the background of the instant case, and the progress thereafter.