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

On October 15, 2014, the Defendant reported that there was a disturbance for revocation on the main line of “D” located in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul and obstructed the police officer’s legitimate execution of duties concerning crime prevention, suppression and investigation of police officers by assaulting the police officer, such as, on October 15, 2014, the following: (a) the police officer of the Seoul Jung-gu Police Station Epic Police Station, who was called out after receiving 112 a report that there was a disturbance for revocation on the main line of “D” in front of the main line of “D” in Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul; (b) whether he would be said to be genuine for the Defendant; and (c) whether he would be frank at this business establishment; and (d) whether he was frighted at this business establishment; and (d) whether he was fully aware of this f

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The statement of each police officer made to F and G;

1. A statement prepared by H;

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted as to the assertion of the defendant and defense counsel under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Code of the Suspension of Execution, asserts that the defendant was in a state of mental disorder under the influence of alcohol at the

However, according to each of the above evidence, although the defendant was found to have been drinking at the time of committing the crime, considering all the circumstances such as the circumstances of the crime, the form of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, and the defendant's act before and after the crime, it cannot be seen that the defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime in this case. Thus, the above assertion is rejected.

The reason for sentencing lies in the fact that the defendant committed violence against the police officer called out in the main cancellation column that obstructs the performance of official duties, and that the case of this case is serious and that the defendant was punished by a fine due to the damage of property, etc.: Provided, That the fact that the defendant had no record of being punished as obstruction of official duties before, and that there was no record of being punished as obstruction of official duties before, the background, mode, circumstances after the crime of this case, the age of the defendant