A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On January 20, 2017, the Defendant: (a) boarded the taxi on the front of the point of “C” located in the Daejeon Middle-gu Daejeon, Daejeon; (b) opened the rear door of the said taxi in the vicinity of the four streets in the middle and middle-gu, the Defendant was able to go to the police box located in the Daejeon Middle-gu, Daejeon; and (c) opened the rear door of the said taxi and sound.

Defendant F to the Inspector F of the Daejeon Police Station E Police Station affiliated with the Daejeon Police Station to ask him/her for the disturbance at the parking lot before the above temporary police box;

C. While taking a bath for F’s right bridge at one time, the above police box requiring F’s right bridge at one time and the above police box’s right bridge at one time, and continuously arrested a flagrant offender at the charge of obstructing the performance of official duties and carrying out the above police box at one time, and subsequently, the above F, “I am fyh, I am fyh, I am F’s face at one time, and interfere with F’s lawful performance of duties concerning the police officer’s 112 report and patrol.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each statement of the I, F, H and G preparation;

1. To arrest the suspect who obstructs the performance of official duties, to report on the arrest of the suspect, to report an investigation, to stop service in a police box, to apply the 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. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the determination of the Defendant’s mental disorder claim by Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act is based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by this court, but it is recognized that the Defendant was in a state of drinking to a certain extent at the time of the instant crime, in light of various circumstances, such as the background leading to the instant crime, the means and method of the crime, and the Defendant’s behavior before and after the instant crime.