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

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, at around 01:45 on August 11, 2017, tried to have a dispute over a taxi driver and a taxi driver before the police box in front of the police box located in B of the Mapo-si, 01:45, while trying to have a dispute over a taxi driver, solicited the Defendant to return home, and the Defendant Do officer affiliated with the police box in the vicinity of the Mapo-si Police Station C, which was in the vicinity, recommended the Defendant to return home, and the Defendant Do to the said D “I am hick, hick, hick, h

“In both hands and hand, the chest of the above D was pushed one time, and entered into a police box with the recommendation of the police officer E belonging to the same patrol force, and the issue of the problem with the taxi engineer with the Defendant was recommended by the police officer belonging to the same patrol force to be resolved by filing a civil petition with the Defendant in a video viewing, and the police officer assaulted the F’s abstin on one occasion by walking the light on his own.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the prevention of crimes by police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to F or D;

1. Application of the Act and subordinate statutes to the police officer’s photograph, Category C police box’s service log (a copy), ctv video image c.

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

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

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

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

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act is a situation unfavorable to the defendant, even though the defendant committed the crime of this case with a uniform and assaulted the police officers who performed legitimate public duties, thereby undermining the exercise of legitimate public authority that should be strictly executed, and the nature of the crime is poor.

However, the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case, and that the defendant did not have any record of criminal punishment since 2001, etc. are considered as favorable circumstances to the defendant, and all other factors of sentencing as shown in the records of this case, including the defendant's age, environment, sex, motive and means of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., are considered as a whole.