A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

Punishment of the crime

On August 19, 2015, around 09:40, the Defendant was subject to control from police officers D and E belonging to Pyeongtaek-si Police Station C District District on the front of the 365 civil petition center in Pyeongtaek-si, Pyeongtaek-si, 51, the 365 civil petition center.

Accordingly, the defendant sent the chest of the above police officer several times by hand, and assaulted the cigarette butts to the face of the police officer E.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on the maintenance of public order.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. A damaged photograph;

1. Notification of the department related to the report of the 112 case and the application of the Act and subordinate statutes concerning investigation reporting;

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. It is necessary to strictly punish the defendant in light of the fact that the defendant had a record of being punished several times for the reason of sentencing selective punishment of imprisonment, in particular, the defendant committed the crime of this case again even though he was punished twice due to the same kind of mistake, and the defendant's drinking habit, punishment records, etc. are highly likely to repeat crimes when considering the risk of recidivism.

However, the sentencing guidelines for crimes obstructing the performance of official duties [the sentencing guidelines for crimes obstructing the performance of official duties (from June to January 4) in consideration of the basic area (from June 1 to January 4) of the first type of interference with the execution of official duties, including the defendant's age, sex, family environment, etc., as well as the fact that the defendant recognized the facts charged in the instant case and reflects his mistake, the degree of interference with the performance of official duties is not serious, the hospital treatment was received with the proof of alcohol, the defendant's age, sexual behavior, family environment, etc.