[criminal history] On August 27, 1993, the Defendant was sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment with prison labor for murder, etc. in the Gwangju District Court’s Manpoon branch on August 27, 1993, and two years of imprisonment with prison labor for murder attempted by the Gwangju High Court on March 19, 197, and on May 13, 2015, the execution of the final sentence was completed in Busan District Court.

[2] On June 23, 2016, at around 23:50, the Defendant: (a) received a report from the victim E (24 years old) who was sent to the Defendant on the 112-day premises of the building C at around 23:50 on June 23, 2016, that the customer frights to walk; (b) voluntarily traveled to the G district located at around 23:40 on the same day; and (c) recommended the Defendant to return to the Defendant, the Defendant fright at the victim’s chest and the fright of bitch; and (d) expressed the victim’s head to the victim, who was under the victim’s chest and the fright, thereby causing injury, such as the victim’s salts and tension in need of treatment for about two weeks.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers regarding the handling of reported cases, and at the same time inflicted injury on the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. A medical certificate;

1. A report on investigation;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: References to criminal history, application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiries and investigation reports;

1. Article 136 (1) and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Reasons for sentencing Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes;

1. The scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court [the scope of the recommended punishment for obstructing the performance of official duties] There is no person [the scope of the recommended punishment for the crime of bodily injury] [the scope of the recommended punishment for the crime of bodily injury] in the basic area of Category 1 (Interference with the Performance of Official Duties and Forced Performance of Duties] [the scope of the recommended punishment for the crime of bodily injury] [the scope of the recommended punishment for the crime of bodily injury] in the mitigated area (two to one year from February to one year] (the special mitigated person]. However, the crime of bodily injury and the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties should be considered at the time of a decision of punishment that declared a person involved in commercial concurrence. 2. The decision of the sentence on July 2, 197 - normal circumstances favorable: