Seized evidence No. 1 shall be confiscated.

[Criminal record] On September 11, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Daegu District Court, and completed the execution of the sentence at the Daegu Detention House on May 11, 2017.

[2] On July 30, 2018, at around 23:30 on July 30, 2018, the Defendant: (a) expressed a food knife (18cc in the knife length) which is a knife and dangerous object while under the influence of alcohol in front of his residence located in Daegu Northern-gu, Daegu; (b) knife his knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife.

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous articles and interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers in relation to the prevention, suppression and investigation of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Seizure records;

1. A copy of the work log and the list of reported cases;

1. Previous convictions: Application of inquiries, such as criminal history, replys to inquiries and the current expropriation status of individuals;

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Articles 144(1) and 136(1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes;

1. The defendant in the sentencing of Article 48 (1) 1 of the Confiscation Criminal Act has been punished for interference with the performance of official duties even before the reason for sentencing. The defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor due to fraud, etc. as indicated in the judgment, and committed a knife, which is a dangerous object within the repeated crime period after being released, and threatened a police officer in the performance of official duties with the danger of interference with the performance of official duties, and the degree of criticism is large.

However, the defendant's acknowledgement of the crime of this case, and the defendant's wife who cannot receive treatment even after traffic accident, is somewhat drinking.