A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

At around 03:50 on April 11, 2016, the Defendant requested to take a protective measure against E, who is a police officer belonging to the above police box, at around 03:50, the Defendant requested the above police box to take a protective measure against E, who is a police officer belonging to the above police box. However, when the police officer stated that the part on the protective measure should be confirmed, it does not mean that the above police officer “is not

10 10 10 10 10

These police officers are these police officers.

C. The head of the Gu shall not be qualified for the police.

“In doing so, I want to see the coffee, which was cited in the Mana World Cup, which was the subject of the disturbance, and spread the f’s face of the coffee, which was the police officer affiliated with the above police box, sought to see the coffee contained in the paper World Cup.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers F in relation to the police officer F's crime prevention, control and patrol box.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report (the list Nos. 4 and 8 of evidence);

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. The Defendant’s assertion of the Defendant’s choice of imprisonment with prison labor and its determination were made at the time of the instant crime, and the Defendant requested the protection of his body from G via the South Seodaemun Police Station and the 112 Report, etc. However, while police officers did not take any measures, the Defendant’s failure to take such measures, and the Defendant’s assertion that he would spread to F in the process of spreading it to the Defendant in order to cut off the coffee residues that he was detained, and that F did not have a legitimate duty at the time or interfered with the Defendant’s act. Accordingly, according to the above macro evidence, the instant crime was committed by the Defendant who did not actively respond to the Defendant’s request for measures to protect the Defendant, while the Defendant intending to take a bath against E and resisted, it was committed by the F in the process of spreading it by assaulting the Defendant’s coffee while the Defendant intending to use it.