A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On June 2, 2014, around 01:45, the Defendant did not pay the drinking value after drinking E and drinking at a D restaurant located in Speaker C, and the Defendant, upon receiving a report from F, the proprietor of the said restaurant, “I would not pay the drinking after drinking” and demanded the police officer H and I to pay E the drinking value and return home to E on several occasions, but E attempted to escape when refusing to pay the drinking value, the police officer H and I arrested E as a flagrant offender of the said restaurant.

Accordingly, the above Defendant assaulted the police officers, such as: “I,” who read to be “I,” and Ha, who saw H’s arms, and pushed H and I in their hands.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers on the arrest of flagrant offenders.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to I, H, J, and F;

1. Police investigation report;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the victim's photographs;

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, the choice of punishment, and imprisonment;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on probation [Scope of Recommendation] : Where the scope of sentence and recommended sentence are insignificant in the area of mitigation (one to eight months) (special mitigation) of the area of obstruction of performance of official duties (one to one month), and the degree of assault, intimidation, and deceptive scheme: One month to six months (decision of sentence], six months of imprisonment with prison labor, one year of suspended sentence, and one year of suspended sentence: Violence with police officers who perform official duties;

(k) favorable circumstances: The fact that this Court recognizes and reflects its mistake in this Court, and there is no same criminal history;

In light of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, circumstances after the commission of the crime, and other factors such as sentencing prescribed in each subparagraph of Article 51 of the Criminal Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.