[criminal power] On April 12, 2012, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 3 million as a crime of obstruction of performance of official duties at the Suwon District Court’s Suwon District Court’s House on March 8, 201, and KRW 3 million as a crime of damaging public goods at the Seocho District Court’s Seocho Branch on March 8, 201, and on August 10, 201, the Defendant was sentenced to four months of imprisonment with prison labor at the Seocheon District Court’s Gangwon Branch Branch on August 10, 201, and is currently under repeated period as of October 1, 2010.

【Criminal Facts】

On February 4, 2013, at around 21:15, the Defendant, without any justifiable reason, entered the D police box located in Pyeongtaek-si C, and her life was frightened by the police officer, who was on duty at the above police box, who was working in the above police box, and was frightd with the words “fright at home”, “fright at home, fright at home, fright at home, fright at the police box.” Accordingly, the Defendant was frightd with the Defendant’s hand, who was frighted by the police officer, and frighted the Defendant’s chest, fright at hand, and frighted the Defendant’s hand, thereby interfering with the legitimate performance of public duties to maintain the order of the police officer.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused;

1. E statements;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Before judgment: Application of criminal records and investigation reports (attached to the same attached written judgment, details of execution of the immediately preceding imprisonment) Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The defense counsel's assertion on the proviso of Article 35 and Article 42 of the Criminal Act among repeated offenders is asserted to the effect that the defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disorder under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case. Thus, according to the evidence of the judgment, the defendant was found to have drinking alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, but in light of various circumstances, such as the circumstances, means, and the defendant's behavior before and after the crime of this case acknowledged by the above evidence.