A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal history] On January 13, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to four months of imprisonment with prison labor for damage to public goods in the Changwon District Court's Chang Branch branch on January 13, 2016, and completed the execution of the sentence in Busan Correctional Institution on May 8, 2016.

[2] On November 24, 2017, at around 23:15, the Defendant: (a) filed a complaint on the ground that the Defendant was detained by the police officers of the previous district zone, around 23:15, on the ground that the Defendant was in custody of the police officers of the police officers of the previous district zone; (b) displayed the complaint on several occasions; (c) the Defendant’s slope E (36 years old) belonging to the above district zone where the Defendant was the victim with the knife the knife; (d) the Defendant’s knife the knife the knife and personal information; and (e) the Defendant’s resistance to the defect that the knife the knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knif.

As a result, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties of police officers on the maintenance of order, and at the same time, damaged the victim's character of face in need of medical treatment for about a week.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. A medical certificate;

1. The place where progress records and work place;

1. Photographss, such as seized articles, CCTV images, and beer-kick photographs;

1. Previous convictions: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as inquiries about criminal history and search results of prisoners;

1. Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties) and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act;

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

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Determination on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes

1. The summary of the argument is that the Defendant was in possession of a multi-purpose knife in front of the DNA War, and cannot be viewed as the current offender because he did not commit any crime. Even if the Defendant violated the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, it is merely an offender under the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act.