On March 6, 2019, at around 22:15, the Defendant: (a) shown that he was under the influence of alcohol in front of Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu B, Sungnam-gu, and C, a police official, took the Defendant into front of the patrol lane; (b) stated that “I am in front of the patrol lane” was defective; and (c) stated “I am in front of the cell phone” as “I am in front of the patrol lane; and (d) took the Defendant’s head.”

was issued.

As at the time, C had engaged in a dangerous act, and continued to read “Isman, Hasman, Isman, Isman, Isman, Isn, Isman, Isman, Isman, Isman, Isman, Isman, Isman, Isman, Isman, Isman, and tried to see C's head with a cellular phone, and thereby interfere with the legitimate execution of C's duties on police officer's security.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on investigation reporting;

1. The relevant Article of the Criminal Act, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the grounds for sentencing choice of imprisonment, and the reasons for sentencing;

1. Scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines [the scope of the punishment of imprisonment] the obstruction of performance of official duties or coercion of duty (the scope of the recommended area and the punishment of recommendation], and one month to eight months of imprisonment;

2. In November 2017, the Defendant, who was sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months for the crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties, again committed the crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties during the suspended sentence period.

In light of the contents of the crime and the circumstances before and after the crime, not only the responsibility for the crime but also the attitude of the defendant's legal order and public authority is considered to be serious. Even if considering the favorable circumstances below, it is inevitable to severely punish the defendant.

However, the fact that the defendant's mistake is recognized and golded, the degree of damage is not much serious, and the damaged police officer is.