A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Punishment of the crime

On April 4, 2015, at around 00:15, the Defendant: (a) called “the loss of a bank” in front of JC Park No. 17, Pyeongtaek-si 1, 200-gil 17, the Defendant: (b) asked the Defendant at the time of the loss of a bank by the head of JC Park 2 Team affiliated with the C District District 2 Team called “the Defendant shall inform the Defendant of the time of the loss of the bank.” (c) the Defendant was satisfing the chest of the said D’s chest and satisfing the left hand.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. E statements;

1. Application of the statutes on the photograph of this case

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

1. The Defendant alleged to the effect that the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical disability, such as that he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, and that the details of the instant crime were not memory, etc., and thus, it is acknowledged that the Defendant was under the influence of a certain degree at the time of committing the instant crime. However, in light of the background leading up to the instant crime, the method of committing the instant crime, and the circumstances after committing the instant crime, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant had weak the ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, thereby

The reason for sentencing [Scope of Recommendation] In the case where the degree of assault, intimidation, and deceptive scheme is minor in the area of mitigation (a special mitigation) [a person who has been subject to the suspension of performance of official duties] (a person who has been subject to a special mitigation] (a decision of sentence] of the charges of this case, the defendant recognizes the charges of this case. The fact that the degree of assault against the victimized police officer is somewhat minor is favorable to the defendant, but the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is likely to undermine the authority of the public authority and disrupt the establishment of legal order, and the defendant is the same as the defendant.