A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Seized evidence No. 1 shall be forfeited from the defendant.

Punishment of the crime

On December 22, 2016, the Defendant: (a) threatened a victim F with a police officer belonging to the police station E zone in Ansan-gu, the Mansan Police Station E zone of the Ansan-gu, the Mansan-si, the Mansan-si, the Mansan-si, the Mansan-si, the Mansan-si, the Mansan-si, the Mansan-si, the Mansan-si, the Mansan-si, the Mansan-si (hereinafter “Mansan-si”), who called the Mansan-si, with ten times more than the 112 Defendant, to notify the Defendant as a violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act; and (b) threatened him

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous objects and interfered with police officers' legitimate performance of official duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Each photograph;

1. Application of statutes on records of seizure and lists of seizure;

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. Reasons for sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Confiscation Criminal Act / [the scope of recommendation] The reason for sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Confiscation Criminal Act / [the scope of punishment / [the scope of recommendation] where one year or four years (one year or four years)), the aggravation area (one year or four years) (a special aggravated person), the threat of group or multiple force, or carries dangerous things / [the decision of sentence] The defendant / [the decision of sentence] issued a dangerous weapon with the police officer's complaint against the police officer's disposition and return to his/her own room, and the police officer with a dangerous weapon. In light of the circumstance and risk, the crime is not very good.

At the time of establishing the law and order of the state and the public authority, the defendant seems to have caused a problem even with the public official in Ansan.

In order to eradicate the problem, the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties, such as this case, needs to be punished strictly.

Therefore, the sentence of sentence is inevitable.

However, it is determined by the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee, taking into account the following facts: (a) the Defendant recognized late and reflects the mistake; (b) the surrounding persons wanting to take the front line; (c) the police officer does not fit as a deadly weapon; and (d) the Defendant has no specific criminal history in addition to a fine once.