Of the facts charged of this case, the prosecution against assault is dismissed.

[The background of criminal conduct] Around September 17, 2014, the Defendant reported to the effect that “a marina business establishment leaves and closes down its business,” through 112 reports from D marina land located in Sungsung City Co., Ltd. around 22:55.

[Contents of a crime] Upon receipt of the above report, the Defendant attempted to correct the Defendant and investigate the circumstances of the case by the victim F, etc., a slope belonging to the E District Police Station E District, etc., called the Defendant, and the Defendant obstructed the Defendant’s performance of duties in relation to the control of a police officer by using a bit of bit of bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a police officer, and a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a police officer.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to J, F, and I;

1. Each statement of G and H;

1. A complaint;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. Relevant legal insult or insult of the crime: Article 311 of the Criminal Act: Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment;

1. Of concurrent offenders, the sentence against the defendant was determined by referring to the following sentencing guidelines for the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties on the grounds of sentencing Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act.

[Scope of Recommendation] The scope of comparative sentence between the two types of obstruction of the performance of official duties (Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties and Forced Performance of Duties) and the size of the recommended sentence that there is no basic area (6-1-4 months): Of the charges of this case, the part of the charges of this case that dismissed in June-1 and April 1, 2014, the Defendant saw that “the Defendant saws the victim J (Woo, 60 years of age) about five times in the victim Jin (Woo, 60 years of age),” and that “the same year of age, and young children” in the case of this case.