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 October 20, 2015, around 04:10, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol in front of the Defendant’s “D building” residing in the Gu Office C, and the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, and was under the influence of alcohol, she was under the influence of alcohol, such as she was under the influence of alcohol, and she was under the influence of the Defendant’s residence, and she was under the influence of the 112, she was under the control of the police station Eter patrol team, she was under the command of the police station Eter patrol team, and she was under the command of the police station, she was under the influence of alcohol,

The Defendant, from this F, “I am accurately and accurately,”

On the one hand, the question of "I am to am to am to the resident registration number, I am to am to the above F," and the above F am to see "I am to the am to the am to the am to the am to the am to the am to the right part of the above F, so I am to the am to the am to the am to the am to the right part of the above F, the am to the am to the am to the am to the am to the am to the am to the upper part of the chest at a time."

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the police officer's legitimate execution of duties concerning on-site measures and protective measures against the principal offender in the reported case.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness F and G;

1. Photographs of a damaged police officer;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes notifying departments related to 112 reporting of the case;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment.

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Determination as to the defendant and his/her defense counsel's assertion under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on the Observation, etc. of Protection, etc.

1. The Defendant asserts to the effect that he did not recognize that he was a police officer at the time of the instant case, and that he did not perform his duties with intent to obstruct the performance of official duties, and that he did not interfere with the police officer’s memory, and that he did not notify the police officer of the doctrine, etc.

(B) However, the defense counsel asserts to the effect that the protective measures taken by the defendant, even though the defendant did not reach the level of normal judgment or mental capacity due to drinking by drinking, itself is a problem, and the defendant only satisfe and put in uniform.