A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four 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 April 20, 2016, the Defendant: (a) committed assaulted at around 08:12 on April 20, 2016, at the time of 112, the Defendant: (b) when he was divingd on the floor of the 'JG 237', which was under influence of alcohol, with the report of 112 that he was under influence of alcohol; (c) when he was sent to the police station B police station of the Republic of Korea, who was called up by the host, caused the Defendant to wear the Defendant; and (d) when he was under influence of C’s right face face by drinking.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant’s legal statement

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. The application of photographs of witnesses, notification of 112 reported departments, and Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts of crime (elective of imprisonment);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution (the following favorable circumstances):

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on the Observation, etc. of Protection, etc. of Social Service Order [the scope of punishment recommended] where the degree of assault, intimidation, and deceptive scheme is insignificant (one month to eight months) in the mitigation area (a person with a special mitigation] (a sentence decision] where the degree of assault, intimidation, and deceptive scheme is minor (a decision of punishment) in order to establish national legal order and eradicate the light of the public authority, it is necessary to strictly punish a crime against public authority, such as interference with the performance of public duties.

The defendant's assaulted a police officer, who was leading to the failure of the defendant, who was living in the passage of the police history of the police station, and caused the defendant, and the responsibility for the crime is not weak.

However, the defendant reflects his fault in depth.

It seems that a person has committed an contingent act due to debrising under the influence of alcohol.

There has been no history of punishment in excess of fine until now.

The degree of assault seems to have been relatively minor.

In this context, the sentencing guidelines shall be determined by taking into account various sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, motive, means and result of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.