A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On February 2, 2017, at around 01:25, the Defendant received a report from the 6-lane in Korea, on the front of the ice 9-gil, and received the report that she was diving, and heard the horses that she will look at from the slope C of the B earth, dispatched to the Defendant, and then she saw the horses that she was locked.

E. The indictment in which she gets off, she she worn off, and she was laid off, and she was laid off to the above C, and the indictment in which she tried to see C’s right-hand arms by her her knife with her her knife as “t, etc.” However, according to C’s police statements, etc., according to C’s police statements, etc., it can be recognized that the Defendant attempted to carried her right-hand arms of C, and it is recognized ex officio without any changes in indictment, as there is no disadvantage to

In other words, the police officer's legitimate execution of duties was hindered by assaulting the public safety and maintenance of order.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Application of the statutes governing the arrest of flagrant offenders;

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment for one month to five years; and

2. The scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines [the scope of the recommended punishment] and the basic area (six months to one year and six months) (no person subject to special sentencing] shall interfere with the performance of public duties.

3. That the defendant's decision on sentencing assaults the police officer on official duty for the safety of the defendant is disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, the order is based on a comprehensive consideration of the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant has no history of criminal punishment within the last ten years, the fact that he/she recognized his/her mistake after he/she was arrested in flagrant offender and transferred to the district, and the age, sex, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and the sentencing guidelines for the Supreme Court sentencing committee.