A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On July 25, 2015, the Defendant: (a) on the street in front of a cafeteria “D” restaurant located in the Gumi-si, Sinsi; (b) on July 25, 2015, the Defendant: (c) was found to have been able to return home to the Defendant after investigating the details of the report against the said cafeteria employee by the police officer F, etc., who was dispatched to the site after receiving a report from the drunk 112 that he was frighting a fright; and (d) was found to have been fright

C. T. G. H. T. H. T. T. H. S.

The investigation shall be conducted equally.

D. Native police intended to “Ch. H. H. H. F. F. F. H. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. c. g., with a breath’s hand, with a f.h., with a f.h., with a b

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of the law of the police statement protocol to F;

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

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Where the degree of violence, intimidation, and deceptive scheme is minor in the mitigation area (one month to eight months) (person subject to special mitigation) of the mitigation area, such as the application of the sentencing criteria [the scope of the recommended punishment], the scope of interference with the performance of public duties;

2. The Defendant, who has been under the influence of alcohol, expressed a desire to a police officer to return home in the future, and obstructed the police officer’s performance of official duties by drinking breath, etc. The fact that the nature of the crime is not good, and that there is a need to strictly punish the Defendant for committing a crime that interferes with the performance of official duties in order to establish a state’s legal order and eradicate the light of public authority.

However, the degree of assault itself does not seem to be particularly significant, the fact that the defendant recognizes the crime of this case and reflects it, and the fact that there is no criminal record except for those of which indictment is suspended due to different kinds of crimes in the past, shall be considered as favorable to the defendant.