A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal records] The Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year on April 21, 2017 by the Seoul Northern District Court for interference with business affairs, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year on April 29, 2017. The judgment became final and conclusive on April 29, 2017, and is currently under suspended sentence.

[Criminal facts]

1. On November 7, 2017, around 00:20, the Defendant 1: (a) stated that the Defendant frighted to a slope E (35 years old) belonging to the D District E (35 years old) affiliated with the D District District, which solicits the Defendant to return home in front of the D District D District No. C, the Chungcheong Police Station located in Chungcheongnam-si, the Defendant 201; (b) stated that the Defendant fright of bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bits the victim several times at the same time; (c) notified the Defendant of the violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act; and (d) asked the Defendant “Y Y Y Y Y

P. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. 11

“A knife, for example, with only one hand, with a view to doing so.”

The police officer's legitimate execution of duties concerning the police officer's 112 patrol was interfered with, as long as he seems to have been able to be fright while carrying out an act, flabing off the lab on the floor, and flab off the lab's clothes.

2. The defendant was arrested as the current criminal who obstructed the performance of official duties at the time and place specified in the above Paragraph 1, and on the same day at the detention room of the Chungcheong Police Station around 02:25 on the same day, "I am why I am in the way of going to go to the front."

D. The Defendant 1 and the Defendant 1 and the Defendant 1 and the Defendant 1 and the Defendant 1 were able to see that the Defendant 1 and the Defendant 1 and the Defendant 1 were able to see that the Defendant 1 and the Defendant 1 and the Defendant 1 were able to see that the Defendant 1 and the Defendant 1 were able to see that the Defendant 1 and the Defendant 1 and 2 were able to see the Defendant 1 and the Defendant 1 and 2 were able to see the Defendant 1 and 2.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the procedure for arresting a flagrant offender and the detention room.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to E and F;

1. Each CCTV image;

1. A previous conviction in judgment: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, investigation report (the previous conviction and the same kind of violence before the suspended sentence of a suspect);

1. Relevant provisions of the Act concerning facts constituting an offense;