A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On June 1, 2018, the Defendant driven D vehicles in front of the store in Seo-gu, Daegu on the road in Seo-gu, Daegu on June 1, 2018. On the road, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol on the road before the store in Seo-gu, Daegu, and was required to take a alcohol test from the F in the circumstances where the vehicle in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seoul was called upon

In order for the above F to put the Defendant to be able to be able to be able to become able to lead the Defendant, the Defendant expressed that the Defendant Y contained water in the instant instant cup and expressed the Defendant’s f’s face. The Defendant assaulted the water contained in the instant cup to f’s face.

Accordingly, the defendant assaulted police officers to interfere with legitimate execution of duties concerning the prevention, suppression and investigation of police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. An investigation report (in the event of a crime, attaching a cell phone image file to a cell phone) / (a) the Defendant asserts to the effect that water was only contacted with the face of a police officer by drinking water in the process of throwing away water from his/her location while he/she was faced with a cell phone, but in full view of the above evidence (in particular, cell phone image), the Defendant’s aforementioned assertion by the Defendant cannot be accepted, since it can be recognized that water was distributed to a police officer’s face.)

Application of Statutes

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Code under the suspended sentence is that the Defendant’s use of violence against the police in the course of performing official duties is not less vulnerable to such act, but the Defendant denies the instant crime, etc., which is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, it is an element for sentencing favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the assault against the obstruction of the execution of official duties of this case is relatively not more severe, and that the defendant has no record of punishment or punishment exceeding the suspension of execution.

In addition, the sentencing shown in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive, background, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.