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

Punishment of the crime

On February 4, 2017, at the same time, the Defendant: (a) reported 112 that “E” on the first floor under the ground of the building D in Gyeyang-gu, Seoyang-gu; (b) sent out by the Defendant after having received a report, “E does not pay the drinking value” from G, a police officer belonging to the F District Police Unit, who was called out, for the F District; (c) made a bath to G; and (d) took a bath to G, the Defendant used the ma of G on one occasion while taking a walk; (d) assaulted G’s bridge by the method of walking at one time; and (e) continuously called “E” on one hand, who was dispatched to the site along with G, and kneved by assaulting H on one occasion by walking at kne-do; and (e) sold the above 2-time therapy and so on to H as necessary for treatment.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of G and H, who are police officials taking measures according to 112 reporting, and at the same time inflicted injury on H.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made to H and G by the police;

1. A written statement of I;

1. Written opinions and damaged photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (ctv investigation);

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties) and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

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

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel in determining the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes

The records of this case show that the defendant was in a state of mental or physical loss or mental weakness. Thus, even though he was in drinking alcohol at the time of the above crime, it does not seem that he did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions or did not seem to have reached a weak state. Thus, the above assertion by the defendant and the defense counsel is accepted.