A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On July 15, 2016, the Defendant, while drunked on the two-lane road in front of the Do government city, on the two-lane road in front of the Do government. On July 20, 2016, the Defendant expressed to the above police officers that “I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am on the right side of the slopeD, and am I am, I would like to have acted, and continuously interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by the police officers for the protection of people’s life and body by assaulting two-lanes to the right side of the E police.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to D and E;

1. A written statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation, a report on investigation (a statement of report 112), a report on investigation (a confirmation of the fact of damage), a report on investigation (a report on patrol car image analysis);

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime concerned;

1. In the event that the act of assault and intimidation was committed against multiple public officials who perform the same duties as the ordinary concurrent crimes, multiple crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties are established according to the number of public officials who perform official duties, and where the above act of assault and intimidation was committed in the same opportunity at the same place, and it is evaluated as one act under the social concept, multiple crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties are crimes of conceptual concurrence.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505 Decided June 25, 2009, etc.). Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. In light of the fact that the Defendant, on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, committed the instant crime by assaulting two police officers dispatched after receiving a report of 112, and thus, the Defendant need to strictly punish the Defendant, taking into account the following: (a) the nature of the instant crime is not good; and (b) there is a need to wear a warning against the light of the public authority.

However, the defendant is not a party.