A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

around 04:21 on September 17, 2020, the Defendant dispute on the gender in front of the subparagraph C of the building B in the Leecheon-si, Gyeonggi-do, and the sound of women is good.

“A woman-friendly passport shall not be issued to the head of the Dong-cheon Police Station D's 112 report to the effect that the E's personal information of a woman is to be verified.

There is no way to do.

Does it be a match, why is why it is;

It is my wife, why is why is.

"A police officer" means a police officer's failure to prevent the above police officer, and the police officer's attempt to identify the identity of the above female, leaving beer cans, leaving F's shoulder, etc., and obstructing the police officer's legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of reports by the 112 police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to police officers who have suffered damage from police statements made to E and F;

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

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with labor for one month to five years;

2. Scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines / [type 1] Interference in the performance of official duties on the grounds of a crime interfering with the performance of official duties / [No person subject to special sentencing] [the territory of recommendations and the scope of the recommended punishment] basic area, six months through one year and six months.

3. The Defendant, who was sentenced to sentence, committed an assault against a police officer who was called up to the territory of the Thailand, which was an illegal sojourner status at the time of the instant case, and obstructed the legitimate execution of official duties.

The defendant's act seems to have been aimed at escape of the above female with the illegal stay.

However, the defendant misleads the defendant and reflects on his wrongness.

At the time, it seems that it was a crime that has lost self-control power and committed contingently.

The extent of violence exercised by the defendant is not much serious.

There is no criminal offense against the defendant over probation.

In addition, the age, sex, environment, circumstances, and circumstances after the crime are committed.