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 January 22, 2017, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at “C” main points located in Mapo-gu Seoul, Seoul on January 22, 2017, but was under the influence of alcohol, and the Defendant was under the influence of disturbance, and was under the influence of disturbance, the Defendant was under the control of the police officer, a police officer belonging to the Mapo Police Station, who was called upon 112, and was under the control of the police officer, and was under the control of the police officer, and was under the control of the police officer, who was called out after receiving the 112 report, and was under the control of the police officer, and was under the control of the police officer. The Defendant was under the control of the above D’s chest with his el and body, and obstructed the police officer’s lawful performance of duties concerning the handling of reports and maintenance of order.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Each police statement made with respect to D, E, and F;

1. Application of the G’s written Acts and subordinate statutes;

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. In light of the fact that there was a history of punishment due to the violence of reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act in the suspended sentence, the crime of this case was committed, and that the crime was committed against police officers in uniform, or that the nature of the crime was not less than that of assault, etc., a strict punishment is required. However, the punishment is determined as ordered in consideration of the fact that the defendant is in profoundly against his mistake, that there was no record of punishment exceeding the fine, that there was no record of punishment exceeding the fine, and that there was no other record of sentencing as indicated in the record