A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On April 13, 2016, at around 00:06, the Defendant reported that he did not pay a fare from E at a police box of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Northern Police Station D located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

When the defendant was arrested as a flagrant offender in the crime of fraud from a slope F who served in the above police box, he threatened him with flick flick flick flick, and threatened him with the above F, and flick flick flick flick flick with the left hand hand.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to F and E;

1. A photograph of a closure;

1. Application of CCTV Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. As to the Defendant’s argument regarding the pertinent Article of the relevant criminal facts and Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act regarding the determination of the Defendant’s argument, the Defendant and the defense counsel asserts to the effect that the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime.

In light of various circumstances, such as the circumstances surrounding the instant crime, means, details of the crime, and the Defendant’s behavior before and after the instant crime, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant did not have or lacks the ability to discern things under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime, and thus, the foregoing assertion cannot be accepted.

The reason for sentencing [the scope of recommended punishment] The basic area of sentencing No. 1 (f.s. to interfere with the performance of official duties and coercion of duties) (f.s. to one year or one year and four months) is that the Defendant, who was sentenced to the suspension of execution of official duties on Sept. 19, 2008, has three years of suspension of execution in August, 3, 2008, and two years of suspension of execution in June, 204, due to interference with the performance of official duties on May 16, 2014, the Defendant committed the instant crime during the suspension of execution, which is highly likely to be subject to criticism, and the Defendant has a history of being subject to criminal punishment 19 times of assault, etc. other than the above force.