[criminal power] On August 8, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor for an injury, etc. in the Sungnam Branch of Suwon District Court, and on August 17, 2012, the said judgment became final and conclusive on August 17, 2012, and completed the execution of the sentence on March 6, 2013 in the Ansan Prison.

【Criminal Facts】

On July 1, 2013, at around 08:25, the Defendant, at the same time, taken alcohol and food within the 'E-cafeteria located in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, and took a bath to F, who is the operator of the business, and was reported by F, 112, and H and assistant I were dispatched to the site.

Then, the Defendant was 30 criminal prior to and 30 criminal offenses against the above police officers. The breath of breath. The breath of breath was breath. The breath of breath. The breath’s face was 1 time at the floor of the breath, and the Defendant stated that “this breath’s breath’s breath was breath.” The Defendant breathd the breath’s breath’s bridge to the breath’s breath, and the Defendant breathd the breath’s face to the breath’s breath to the breath’s breath’s breath to the breath’s breath to the breath’s breath to the breath’s breath to the

Accordingly, the defendant and the defendant C conspired to interfere with the legitimate performance of official duties by police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to I and H;

1. Application of the respective Acts and subordinate statutes of F, J and K;

1. Articles 136 (1) and 30 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting the crime;

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

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. The sentence is imposed by taking account of favorable reasons such as the fact that a repeated crime for sentencing Article 35 of the Criminal Act is committed during the period of repeated crime, the same criminal records and violent criminal records are committed several times, and the fact that the defendant seems to commit a crime after drunk, and the degree of damage is not severe.