Around 06:50 on March 28, 2014, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the Jeonsan Police Station located in Jeonsan-gu Jeoncheon-gu, Jeoncheon-gu, Jeoncheon-gu, with a view to asking whether C, an auxiliary police officer belonging to the Jeon Mansan Police Station, who had been working for the control of entry and guard, has been in his/her own as his/her own seat to the Defendant. The Defendant asked C to “I am in his/her prison,” and again C again referred to as “The Director of the Investigation Department, who has been in his/her own seat, has been in his/her own seat.” In addition, C attempted to enter the said police station with his/her mouth, who had been in his/her own seat and carried out his/her seat, with his/her escape.”

Therefore, in order for auxiliary police officers, including C, to take the defendant into the criminal department office to request assistance, and the defendant entered the criminal department entrance, and the defendant saw D's cream, which is an auxiliary police officer belonging to the above police station, at the same time.

Accordingly, the defendant assaulted C and D, a auxiliary police officer belonging to the Jeonju Police Station, and interfered with his legitimate execution of duties concerning his access control and guard service.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement to C, D, and E;

1. A written statement;

1. Each investigation report and evidential materials attached thereto;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing CCTV images;

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

1. From among concurrent crimes, the reason for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act is as follows: (a) the Defendant, who led to the confession of the instant crime and reflects in depth the mistake; (b) the risk of force exercised by the Defendant was relatively low; and (c) the risk of force exercised by the Defendant was not much much serious as a result of damage.

However, in light of the fact that the defendant committed the crime of this case on the day of release, that the defendant did not agree with the victimized police officers, and that the defendant had the same criminal power.