beta
Text
The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The defendant shall be a public official of Grade VII in general administrative service who works in the police station B.
On September 12, 2020, the Defendant was urged to return home from G in the circumstances belonging to the E police station F police station, who was dispatched after receiving a 112 report due to alcohol at the front parking lot of the D community service center located in C around September 22, 2020.
“.................. with the left floor of the upper end of G, assaulted at one time the right side of G.
As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning the handling of reported cases.
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement by the defendant in court;
1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes of the police statement protocol to G;
1. A fine of two million won which is to suspend sentence under Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, which is applicable to the relevant criminal facts, and Article 136 of the Criminal Act, the choice of a punishment;
1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act (one-day conversion amount: one hundred thousand won);
1. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court as to the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion that the defendant was unable to recognize that he was a police officer in the physical, mental, or physical or mental state of loss, or that he was unable to recognize that he was a police officer when he committed the crime of this case, it is acknowledged that the defendant had drinking alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, even though he was aware that he was seated on the job and was seated on the job, that he was seated on the job, G was informed that he was a police officer and recommended him to return home, and that the defendant was in a state that he did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the crime of this case, and that he did not have the ability to discern things or to make decisions.
It can not be seen by G, and the Defendant recognized that G was a police officer who was performing his duties.
Recognized.
Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument of the defendant and his defense counsel.