A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

While the Defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to stimulative disorder, etc., around September 23:50, 2013, the Defendant found the office of duty of the Seoul Western District Prosecutors' Office located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 105-1 on September 23:50, 2013 and took up the office of duty of the Seoul Western District Prosecutors' Office on two occasions without any special reason, and interfered with the legitimate performance of duties concerning night duty work of the prosecution investigators by putting off the body of the prosecution clerk C, who is on duty, who is on duty, in his/her hand, was collected from the above C, putting off the body of the prosecution clerk C, who is on duty, and putting him/her under his/her will to the prosecution clerk D, who is on duty.

Summary of Evidence

1. A written statement of C and E;

1. Each report on investigation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to video recording data from CCTV in office on duty;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime concerned (the point of obstruction of performance of official duties);

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

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Statutory mitigation under Articles 10 (2) and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act;

1. As to the assertion of counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, the defense counsel asserts to the effect that the defendant was in a state of mental disorder, since the defendant had no ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the instant crime.

In full view of the motive and background of the instant crime, method, investigation agency and the Defendant’s statement in this court, the Defendant’s medical history and treatment process, symptoms, etc., which are recognized by the records of this case, it cannot be seen that the Defendant, at the time of the instant crime, has lost the ability to discern things or make decisions under the lack of the ability to discern things or make decisions due to stimulative disorder, etc., and thus, the defense counsel’s assertion on this issue is rejected.