【Criminal Power】 On April 29, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to one year to imprisonment for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual Violence) at the Seoul East Eastern District Court on April 29, 201, and completed the execution of the sentence at the third prison of North Korea North Korea on March 26, 2012.

(1) On July 15, 2013, at around 01:05, the Defendant: (a) expressed that the Defendant’s mother was frighted and frighted in front of the entrance of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government where C is residing; (b) received a report that the Defendant was frighted and frighted, and heard the details of the report from C; and (c) expressed that the police officer F, who belongs to the E-gu Police Station of Gangseo-dong Police Station E-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government, who was frighted, was tightly tightly tightly tight to the left shoulder; and (d) the Defendant f’s body was frighted up to the upper part of the head of F one so as to prevent the Defendant’s f from doing so.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning investigation by police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement concerning F;

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to criminal records and investigation reports (report attached to previous records and a copy of judgment);

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

1. The reason for sentencing Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated offenders;

1. Scope of the sentence recommended by the sentencing guidelines [determination of types] Crimes of obstruction of the performance of official duties, / [Determination of the recommended sphere] basic area [the scope of sentence of recommendation] June to January 14

2. In view of the fact that the Defendant, who was sentenced to the sentence, was sentenced to a multiple sentence for violent crimes, and the Defendant did not commit the instant crime even during the period of repeated crime at the time of the instant crime, it is inevitable to strictly punish the Defendant.

However, the sentence shall be determined as ordered in consideration of the fact that the defendant has recognized and reflected his mistake and the conditions of sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.