【Criminal Power】 On March 23, 2016, the Defendant sentenced ten months to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc. (Refence, etc.) in Young-dong District Court’s Young-dong Branch, and completed the execution of the sentence at the Chungcheong House on August 11, 2016.

【Criminal Facts of Crimes】 On September 12, 2016, the Defendant was asked at the 32 Young-dong Police Station, Young-gu, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-dong, Chungcheongnam-dong, Chungcheongnam-do on September 12, 2016, to ask questions to the police station on the reasons why he visited the police station from Suwon-do, an auxiliary police officer belonging to the Chungcheongbuk-dong Police Station, who was working for the control of access and the office building security service, and entered the police station without undergoing identification procedures. In order to stop this, the Defendant was asked at the head of the police station, who was asked at the direction of the police station in order to ask at least one time whether he diced alcohol from the Defendant who was driven in front of the headquarters of the above Young-dong Police Station.”

As a result, the Defendant interfered with legitimate performance of duties concerning access control of auxiliary police officers and office expenses.

Summary of Evidence

[Criminal Facts in the Judgment of the court]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. To refer to inquiries, such as criminal records, etc., to inquiries, court rulings of the first, second, and third instance courts, and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the personal confinement status of each person, where a person works for auxiliary police officers of the Yeongdeungpo-dong Police Station;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 136 of the Election of Imprisonment;

2. The defendant asserts that the defendant's assertion of Article 35 of the Criminal Act, among repeated offenders, was in a state of mental suffering from alcohol at the time of the crime of this case.

However, in light of the circumstances and contents leading to the instant crime, the Defendant’s remarks and actions before and after the instant crime, which were duly adopted and examined by the court, etc., the Defendant was capable of distinguishing things at the time of the instant crime.