On October 7, 2015, the Defendant: (a) while drinking alcohol at D’s main points located in C at permanent residence around 01:30 on October 7, 2015, the Defendant: (b) provided the drinking alcohol at D’s main points; (c) provided the bath to other customers who started and were in C; and (d) provided the pacta; and (c) upon receiving a report from 112, the Defendant requested that the Defendant return the bath F, a police officer belonging to E District of the permanent police station E District of the permanent police station, who was called for, and returned to, the Plaintiff.

This dog t. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. by

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers on the handling of reported duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to F and G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report and accompanying documents;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Although selective sentencing of a sentence of imprisonment with prison labor is minor, the defendant is under the influence of alcohol, and the police officer’s act of obstructing the performance of official duties is repeated, considering the fact that it appears difficult to interrupt the crime by his/her own treatment, a sentence shall be imposed on the defendant.

However, the defendant shall be sentenced to punishment in consideration of the fact that the defendant needs mental and medical treatment due to a bipolar disorder, etc. and reflects the wrong.