On April 17, 2014, around 19:35, the Defendant took a bath to the victim E (the 35 years old), who was the police box belonging to the Pyeongtaek-gu Police Station D police station, which called “the son’s age ought to live several times, rings, and sprinke,” who was called out after having reported the 112 that the juice sponsed, and called out, “C” in Pyeongtaek-si Police Station D (the 35 years old). The Defendant carried the body of the said victim in hand and body, pushed the body of the victim, pushed the breath of the breath, cut back the breath of the breath, and laid down the breath, and put the victim over the floor with a breath of the breath in need of treatment for about

As a result, the defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of duties by police officers related to 112 reporting management, and at the same time injured the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

1. A statement of F and G;

1. A medical certificate;

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Articles 311 and 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the relevant criminal facts;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes (the crimes of obstruction of the performance of official duties and the crimes of injury, and the punishment imposed on the crimes of serious injury);

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the Defendant recognized the crime for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act among concurrent crimes, and the first offender with no criminal power prior to the instant case. However, the Defendant committed the instant crime committed by the police officer who exercised public authority by neglecting his/her authority without any special reason, and the Defendant committed the instant crime by exercising violence. In full view of the fact that the damaged police officer expressed his/her intent to punish the Defendant, and that he/she did not feel the seriousness of the crime committed by the police officer, there is a need to sentence sentence corresponding to his/her criminal liability against the Defendant.

On the other hand, the sentencing factors and the family relationship of the defendant prior to the determination of the punishment.