A shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

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

Defendant

A On March 1, 2016, 13:40 on March 1, 2016, at the front of the cafeteria “E” restaurant located in Ansan-si, Ma, the Party reported that its wife B was arrested by H, a policeman affiliated with the Z, of Ansan-si, the Gacon G District of the Masan-gu, Masan-si, Annsan-si, Masan-si, on the charge of assaulting the F of the restaurant staff member F.

I expressed the desire to “Choe Ha,” and assaulted, so far, the right face of H by drinking, so far as possible, and the left side of the police officer of the Haro Hadro Hadro Hadro Hadro Had the part, such as the vehicle in which the left side of the police officer is walking.

Accordingly, Defendant A interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers on the arrest of flagrant offenders.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Statement made by the police with H;

1. A written statement of F and I;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the photographic file related to the case

1. Article 136 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor (the following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing shall be considered):

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution [the grounds for sentencing favorable to the reasons for sentencing] of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act [the scope of recommendation] There is no person in charge of interfering with the performance of official duties (from June to January 1, and April) (the special sentencing person] [the decision of sentence] of the basic area (the special sentencing person] of Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution [the decision of sentence] [the (1983) has a long history of crime, but there is a history of having been punished for robbery injury to Defendant A (1983). The crime of this case has a history of having been punished for robbery injury in 209. The crime of this case is committed by the police officer on the right side of the police officer on the face of the performance of official duties, and the fact that the remaining left side of the crime appears to walk, and the nature of crime is not good in light

However, the above defendant recognized his mistake and reflects it, and deposited KRW 500,00 for the above police officers, and there is no record of crime exceeding fines other than the past records punished by robbery, and the sentence like the order, taking into account the favorable circumstances such as the fact that there is no record of crime exceeding fines, and all the conditions of sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.