around 05:00 on March 8, 2016, the Defendant was called by D’s mother, her father, and the Defendant was assaulted by D from police officers, and she was going to go in front of the Gu F of the Y of Gyeonggisan-si, Gyeonggi-si, Gyeonggi-si, and go to the police officers, such as H, etc., of the police officer of the G District District of the Gyeonggisan-si, G District of the Gyeonggi-si, G District of the Gyeonggisan-si, who called “I

h. Hear h. Hear walk management well.

Although this hings theory, “this hings this hings,” and received several notifications from H, etc., the hings theory that “A hinge hinge hinge hinge, this hinge hinge hings the body of the said H several times by hand.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on the control of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with H;

1. A written statement of I;

1. Application of related Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs;

1. The relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the grounds for sentencing under Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act for the choice of criminal facts;

1. Type 1 (Interference with the performance of official duties and coercion of duties) basic area (from June to one year and four months) (no person subject to special sentencing) shall interfere with the scope of recommended punishment for performing official duties;

2. The fact that the sentence is contrary to the decision of sentence has been bad, the age, sex and environment of the accused who is under the period of probation, the background of the crime in this case, and the circumstances after the crime, etc.