A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On December 12, 2016, 06:20 around 06:20, the Defendant does not break off the taxi passengers by locked at the front of the entrance of the 47-ro (Madong, Madong, Hyundai Apartment) 102 underground parking lots of 102, Seo-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon.

“........ Doese D’ of the Incheon Western Police Station C District Unit of the Incheon Western Police Station, which was called upon the report of 112, has examined the Defendant “.......... of such weather rings”; or

Does this result of the judgment of the court

In the light of the following: “A police officer who has been recommended to return home from the victim E who is a patrol officer belonging to the same patrol group; “A h. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S. S. S. S. S. S. S.S. S. S. S. S. S.S. S. S. S.S. S. S.S. S.S. S.S. S

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of duties of policeman E, such as patrol duty, and openly insulting E.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. A written statement;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the 112 Report Report Report List, C District Service Records, and video data at the scene of crimes;

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of public duties), Article 311 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor, respectively;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The Defendant alleged to the effect that he was in a state of mental and physical weakness under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime. As such, according to each of the above evidence, the Defendant drank alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.