A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. On October 30, 2015, from around 23:30 to October 01, 31, 2015 to around 01:05 of the same year, the Defendant: (a) at the “D” entertainment drinking point for the victim C’s operation in the public city B; (b) as if he/she were to pay the price in the absence of the intent or ability to pay the alcohol value; and (c) ordered the victim to provide the alcohol and the alcohol to the victim; and (d) the defrauded received two weeks from the victim, one of which is equivalent to KRW 3.10,00,000, and acquired

2. The Defendant, who interfered with the performance of official duties at the time, time, and place specified in paragraph 1 and sent to the site by receiving a report at the site, stated in paragraph 1, refers to “Cexpule” without any justifiable reason to the police officer F of the E earth.

On one occasion of drinking with the left part of the warning F, the police officer who deals with the reported case at one time with the upper part of the left luminous part of the warning F, and interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by the police officer who deals with the reported case at one time with the upper part of the luminous part of the 112.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement with respect to C and F;

1. A receipt;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Investigation Report and Investigation Report - Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes acquiring a suspect;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act (the fraud point, the choice of imprisonment with labor), and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of public duties and the choice of imprisonment with labor);

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following sentencing shall be taken into account circumstances favorable to the defendant during the period of sentencing);

1. The Defendant asserts that the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, Articles 59 and 62 of the Act on the Protection, Observation, etc. of Social Service Order, and Articles 62 of the same Act is purporting to the effect that the Defendant, at the time of the instant crime, cannot be memoryd by drinking

According to the evidence, it seems that the defendant was under influence at the time of the crime of this case, but such circumstance alone is deemed that the defendant had a weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the crime of this case.