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

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Records] The Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on October 4, 2016 to ten months of imprisonment with prison labor due to habitual assault, etc. at Suwon Friwon, and the judgment became final and conclusive on the 12th of the same month, and is still under the suspended sentence.

[Criminal facts] On January 15, 2017, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol around 23:00, went to the D District Unit in Ansan-gu, Manyang-si C, and was arrested and being investigated as a flagrant offender due to a separate property damage case, he saw the Defendant to go through a horse on the following grounds: (a) the person who was arrested and being investigated as a flagrant offender.

Accordingly, the Defendant requested that the slope E working in the said district group “I am out of the area other than the pertinent persons,” and prevented the Defendant, the Defendant was in his hand sealed the said slope E, and the scam E was released out of the district group, and then the entrance was set off in a simplified book.

그러나 피고인은 재차 위 지구대 내로 들어오려고 시도 하면서 E이 막고 있는 유리 출입문을 발로 찼고, 이에 E이 문을 열고 피고인에게 재차 귀가를 권유하자, 피고인은 팔꿈치로 E의 명치를 치는 등 폭행하였다.

As a result, the defendant interfered with the execution of duties on the safety management of the district unit E and the prevention of escape.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. A report on investigation (the closure of a terrestrial CCTV and the attachment of images), a photograph of closure;

1. The defendant's defense counsel for the inquiry about criminal history and investigation report (the confirmation date during the period of probation) on the mental and physical weakness argument. The defendant's defense counsel asserts that the defendant suffered from the flat dynamic disorder at the time of the crime of this case. Thus, according to the evidence submitted, it is recognized that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, and even though it is recognized that the defendant was under the treatment due to stimulative disorder, the defendant has the ability to discern things or make decisions due to stimulative disorder or drinking at the time of the crime of this case.