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

However, 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

On November 2, 2014, the Defendant: (a) committed assault at the E main station located in D on November 23:08, 2014, the Defendant, while drinking alcohol together with the workplace rent, was under the influence of alcohol while drinking, and received a report of 112, and served as a patrol officer and patrol officer of the relevant police station, who was called out after receiving a report of 112, to stop him; and (b) committed assault by G and patrolman, such as flabing down the flaps of H by hand.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning police officers' 112 mobilization duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of I, J, G and H;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime concerned;

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

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s assertion on the Defendant’s assertion regarding Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act only resisted the police officer to find the card by drawing and drawing his bridges while finding his/her card lost. The Defendant did not interfere with the police officer’s performance of official duties.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence revealed as follows: (a) the place where the instant case occurred, namely, ① the place where the Defendant was located, and the place where the Defendant was found a daily card is sufficiently seen from the outside through a string door where some walls were installed, so it appears that police officers could not have taken and drawn the Defendant’s bridge; (b) the owner of the instant main shop or other police officers who were called at the time of the instant case stated that G or H did not look at the Defendant’s bridge; and (c) the Defendant had up the main entrance of the instant case from the center of the instant main shop to G and H with the Defendant’s broth; and (d) the Defendant refused the police officers’ demand of the police officers that caused the bridge, and was arrested as a whole, at the time of the instant case.