However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On July 14, 2014, the Defendant: (a) 22:29, while drunkly drunkd in front of C cafeteria B, and 112 reported to 112, the Defendant took a bath to the victim E (the age of 30) who was a policeman in charge of the Bapo Police Station D police box called the Defendant, “police sprinks, niffes, nife, nife, F or knife sprinks,” and taken one time the victim’s sprink.

As a result, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the maintenance of order of the victim and crime prevention, and at the same time, he saw the victim a face-to-face in need of medical treatment for about two weeks.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Photographs of damaged part of the victim;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a medical certificate;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act;

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

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Consideration of sentencing)

1. The Defendant alleged 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 instant crime. Thus, according to the aforementioned evidence, it cannot be seen that the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disorder under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime, even though he was aware of drinking at the time of the instant crime, and that the Defendant did not have or was in a state of lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions. Accordingly,

The reason for sentencing is that the defendant recognizes his mistake and reflects it, that the victim agrees with the victim, that the victim's injury is minor, that the defendant is a contingent crime, that there is no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine, that the defendant has the age, character and conduct of the defendant, and that the sentencing guidelines are applied as it is for ordinary concurrent crimes.