On May 21, 2016, around 19:50, the Defendant was admitted to the protection room by performing abnormal behavior, such as cutting of a place and cutting of all TV in the ward.

While the Defendant repeated the act of walking the entrance in the protective room, the Defendant took a sudden action to take the wall and windows of the protective room at around 23:36 on the same day, and prevented the injured party D and E (34) belonging to the said detention center. At the same time, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the management of inmates of the above E by shouldering the Gap himself/herself's right shoulder, thereby hindering the above E from performing his/her legitimate duties, and at the same time, put the chest string wall that requires approximately three weeks of treatment to the said E.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to F and E;

1. A medical certificate;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to each damaged correctional officer's photograph, CD-cape course;

1. The point of injuring an O's injury to a crime: Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act that interferes with the performance of official duties of theO: Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Punishments imposed on the crimes of bodily injury which are heavier in holding that punishment is more severe);

1. In light of the fact that the criminal defendant, who has the reason for sentencing chooseing to imprisonment with prison labor, was a majority of the criminal records that he had been punished for the same kind of criminal records, and in the end, he/she inflicted an injury upon a correctional officer in charge of administration during the

However, the defendant appears to have an attitude of confession and reflect against the defendant, the fact that the defendant was imprisoned due to emotional disturbance, and the previous criminal case that was the cause of detention of the defendant was not yet finalized as an appeal by the defendant (Supreme Court Decision 2016Do14036 Decided July 1, 200), but in consideration of the legislative intent of concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act (Supreme Court Decision 2016Do146 Decided the punishment as ordered by taking into account the favorable circumstances such as the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment, etc., and the conditions of sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the defendant's age