[Criminal Power] On November 13, 2019, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for the obstruction of performance of official duties by the Daegu District Court on November 22, 2019 and the judgment became final and conclusive on November 22, 2019.

【Criminal Facts】

On June 20, 2019, when the Daegu District Court issued an appraisal cell in relation to the instant criminal case, and was confined in the Public Medical Treatment and Custody Center B, which was located in 253, i.e., distribution early July 23, 2019 when distribution took place, the Defendant: (a) around July 23, 2019, when the victim C (the age of 42) who was under confinement was able to discern things or make decisions due to the injury of the victim due to the injury of the victim; (b) around July 20, 2019, when the victim C (the age of 42) was able to distinguish things or make decisions due to the injury of the victim due to the injury of the victim, she was released from the body of the victim; and (c) when the victim was able to take her face with the victim’s body, she went beyond the floor and her body, and divided the victim’s her body into 28-day treatment for 28 days.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Protocol concerning suspect interrogation of C;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. A working report;

1. A closure screen of CCTV image images;

1. Each report on investigation;

1. A criminal record, and the point of mental or physical disability: Criminal history records, inquiry of case, and application of each statute of the judgment;

1. Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 257 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. Article 10 (2) and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for mitigation of mental disorders;

1. The crime of this case with the reason for sentencing under the latter part of Articles 37 and 39(1) of the Criminal Act is deemed to have affected the crime, taking into account the following factors: (a) the Defendant inflicted bodily injury on the victim while being given expert testimony during the process of being tried; (b) the Defendant had a significant number of criminal records of the same kind; and (c) the Defendant again committed a crime despite the fact that the Defendant did not receive a letter from the victim until now; and (d) the Defendant’