However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On March 27, 2017, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol in Mapo-gu Seoul, Seoul, and was under the influence of alcohol in the street. On March 27, 2017, the Defendant was under the control of the police officers belonging to the Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo Police Station (Seoul Mapo Police Station) and was under the control of the police officers, and was under the control of the police officers, and was under the control of the police officers.

At around 02:10 on the same day, the Defendant re-entered into the above DD office, and expressed to the mitigated E of the above D D D office that “this sons this son,” and made both son’s face at one time.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the police officer's request for protection measures and legitimate execution of duties related to global service.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a investigative report (STV image verification and caps);

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

1. Although the criminal liability is not exceptionally applied to police officers who have taken protective measures and safely returned from the defendant, who were under the influence of liquor for the reason of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, in light of the fact that there is no criminal record other than a fine once in 2003, the risk of recidivism is high, considering that there is no criminal record other than a fine once in 2003, the punishment is determined as ordered in the light of various circumstances, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive for the crime, and circumstances after the crime.