A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On October 23, 2013, around 19:15, the Defendant: (a) was unable to avoid disturbance, such as smoking the glass windows for the Eststuna vehicle owned by the Defendant while under the influence of alcohol, and walking the said vehicle at several times.

The Defendant: (a) the victim slope G (the age of 40) and the victim patrolmen (the age of 33) committed the act of disturbance; (b) the Defendant she saw that the Defendant she she obstructed the above disturbance; (c) she she walked at once, and she she she she walked the right mouth of the above H; and (d) the Defendant she inflicted on the above G, while walking the right buckbucks of the above G at once, she she she suffered injury on the part of the 5-day left her, which requires approximately 6 weeks of medical treatment; and (d) the Defendant she did not give approximately 2- weeks of medical treatment to the above H, such

Accordingly, the Defendant, a police officer, interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning G and H’s public security and maintenance of order, and at the same time inflicted an injury on the victims.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused;

1. Statement of prosecutorial statement concerning H and G;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

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

1. Selection of alternative imprisonment with prison labor (the punishment imposed on a heavier punishment shall be imposed);

1. Of concurrent crimes, the crime of this case was committed on the grounds of sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act, on the grounds that it was committed by the Defendant upon receiving a report and obstructing the performance of official duties by committing an injury to two police officers, and the degree of injury inflicted upon the police officers is heavy, and the Defendant was unable to regulate his or her labor, and the Defendant committed an act threatening to his or her safety, which was committed by his or her wife and his or her wife, before being viewed as his or her wife, and was unable to prevent his or her own vehicle from being damaged by mind rather than by pening his or her mistake.