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

On September 23:50, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 23:50, at the Yansan-si B apartment parking lot; (b) took a serious bath for the victim C (manam and 55 years of age) to report the drinking driving of the Defendant’s daily operation; (c) was salvating the victim’s breath by hand; (d) the D Zone E of the Jeonbuk-do Police Station, called on the site after receiving 112 reports, carried the body of the said E on his hand; and (c) caused the defect that the said E carried the Defendant’s body and carried the Defendant’s right-hand arms.

As a result, the Defendant inflicted injury on the victim C such as salt, tensions, etc., which requires treatment for about two weeks, and interfered with legitimate performance of duties by the police officer on the handling of the 112 Report Report case, and at the same time, inflicted injury on the victim E (ma, 48 years of age) on the right-hand part, which requires treatment for about two weeks.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of each police statement of C and E;

1. Report and photograph of the investigation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of each written diagnosis;

1. Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

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 to victims E shall be punished with the heavier punishment, and the punishment specified for the crimes of injury to E shall be imposed);

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. In light of the fact that the nature of the crime of this case is inferior to the nature of the crime and the failure to recover from damage, the defendant should be punished strictly in light of the reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Act by the reporting person who reported a drunk driving, and the police officer dispatched to the police officer who used violence.

I would like to say.

However, the defendant appears to have the attitude of recognizing and opposing the crime in this court, and the same crime is not the case where a fine is imposed once in the past.