A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On May 24, 2018, the Defendant: (a) received 112 a report from the police officer belonging to the police station located in the police station located in the Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-ro, 1482, to the effect that “the Defendant is an agent, who is an agent,” and was asked questions about personal information, etc. on the front of the original apartment, on the road of the Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, the Suwon-gu, the Defendant 112-ro, and thereby received inquiries about the personal information, etc. from E, the police officer belonging to the police agency located in the police station located in the police station located in the Suwon-gu, the Defendant 4 times spited into the face of E; and (b) spited the face of F, the police officer belonging to the same district where it was proposed, and thereby interfered with the Defendant’s legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of reporting duties by police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to E and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs;

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes (a punishment imposed on a person who has committed a crime with heavier punishment for obstructing the performance of official duties against E);

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act and Article 59 of the Act on the Protection, Observation, etc. of Social Service Order was to assault police officers who perform duties by putting in prison and thereby impair the public authority with respect to the enforcement of law.

The Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties by making it possible for police officers to seriously definate and definitely definate their desire to work.

In 200, the Defendant had been punished by a fine of KRW 300,000 for a crime related to violence, and in 2002 for a crime of interference with the performance of official duties and the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, as well as a fine of KRW 700,00 for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) in 2004, the Defendant again committed the instant crime even though he had sufficient opportunity to be aware of his violent inclination and abnormal behavior during drinking. However, the Defendant committed the instant crime by contingency.