209 Highest 10999 A. Performance of official duties

(b) Definating;

A (in 72 years old, South) and branch employees

Suspension Decree

Attorney Kim Sang-chul

May 19, 2009

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to eight months. 66 days under confinement prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

Criminal facts

1. Defluence;

At around 05:35 on March 14, 2009, the Defendant, who was arrested and investigated in the act of violence at the police station XX district located in the Jung-gu Busan Centraldong, and was arrested in the act of violence, and subsequently insulting the victim B, who was affiliated with the XX district, was forced to avoid smoking to the Defendant, and there was 5-6 police officers, such as Police Officers C, etc., who were 5-6 police officers of the same police officers, were sprinking tobacco smoke on the victim’s face. The Defendant sexually insulting the victim by openly insulting the victim.

2. Performance of official duties;

On March 14, 2009, at around 06:10 on October 14, 2009, the Defendant: (a) obstructed the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties in relation to criminal investigation by committing a criminal investigation by committing a criminal investigation into E, who was under investigation of D who was assaulted by the Defendant on the same day, to the slope E belonging to the XX district unit.

Summary of Evidence

omitted.

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 136(1) and 311 of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Provided, That the aggregate of long-term punishments for two crimes)

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

Judgment on the Defense Counsel's argument

The defense counsel asserts that the defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental retardation by drinking at the time of the crime of this case. Thus, according to the evidence mentioned above, the defendant's defense counsel's defense counsel's assertion is not accepted since the defendant was aware of drinking at the time of the crime of this case, but did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions or did not have the ability to discern things.

Judges Han Han-Gyeong