A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, at around 00:09 on February 26, 2017, under the influence of alcohol in the C District of the Police Station C District of the Police Station assigned to Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-nam on February 26, 2017, was under the influence of alcohol and, without any justifiable reason, avoided disturbance at around 0:25 on the same day, 0:00,000, “Cp. Law.”

I would like to find it in the letter.

서 장 불러 줘 라. 자식 같은 새끼들이 까불고 있어. 개새끼들 죽으려고. 나 징역 안 보내면 대가리를 부숴 버린다.

Madaria not later than aftermadar.

너 죽여. ”라고 말하여 위 D을 협박하고, 같은 날 00:30 경 피고인에게 인적 사항을 묻는 위 지구대 소속 경위 E에게 “ 서장 찾아 와라. 내 인적 사항 알려줬잖아.

씹새끼들 아. 개새끼들 죽으려고. 십쌔 끼들. 나 징역 보내.

In doing so, “A mobile phone in possession was fluort E with a cellular phone toward the chest part of the said E, and assaulted E.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers on the prevention and suppression of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of the statutes on the photograph of this case

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

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. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution [Scope of Recommendation] There is no person (from June to one year and six months) in the basic area (i.e., interference with performance of official duties) (i., June to one year and six months) (i.e., a person subject to special sentencing] [decision of sentence] The instant crime requires strict punishment due to the Defendant’s disturbance at the police station boundary, intimidation, and assault of the police, and the nature and circumstances of the crime.

However, the arguments of this case, such as the fact that the defendant reflects the defendant's mistake in depth, that the defendant has no record of committing a crime heavier than a suspended sentence, that the previous criminal record was 23 years, and that the defendant's age, sex, environment, circumstances, and circumstances after committing the crime, etc. are shown in the arguments