A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, 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 February 12, 2014, at around 16:30, the Defendant: (a) in the dwelling of D, the front wife of the Defendant, at the Chungcheongnam-nam Budget C Apartment 101 Dong 606, and (b) in the dwelling of D, the Defendant, under the influence of alcohol, reported that he was frighting to his female; and (c) in the dwelling of the police officer F and Assistant G, who called out after receiving a report that he was frighting

The Gu, etc. is subject to the restriction.

Accordingly, the Defendant had been aware of the police officers, and there was no fact about how this son, son, and son. There was no fact about this son prior to manc. D. We now want to see that she would go through the shenc. I want to shencule in the face. I would like to shencule the shencule in the face. I would like to shencule the shencule two times by drinking the head of the above F, and continued to her stop up to the apartment parking lot. I would like to go through the police officers “I would not do so. I will am flcule the flcule. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. h. h. n. h. n. n., she would cut off the shencule of the shencule.”

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of reference witness of the prosecution concerning D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to police statements made to G, F and H;

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

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 62(1) of the suspended execution of the Criminal Act appears to have led to the confession and the truth against the Defendant. The crime of this case appears to have been committed by the Defendant under the influence of alcohol; the crime of this case is not likely to have been committed by the police officers due to the crime of this case; the Defendant deposited KRW 40,000 for the victimized police officers; and the Defendant is a de facto spouse of the Defendant.