A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On July 4, 2016, around 04:43, at the front of the D convenience store located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant received 112 reports on the Defendant’s interference with the Defendant’s business and sent back to her uniform tea, and when the police officer F of the Seoul Investigative Police Station’s police box and Gman found the facts, the Defendant himself/herself would bring about the police officer “(s) of the Defendant, f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f

Doz. Doz. Doz.

I want to do so, as he wishes, Gaz. Police stations do not need to be different.

“Abspiting F’s breast part of her chest by drinking, and assaulting F’s chest one time, and, after arresting a flagrant offender, she spited in the patrol box that was sent to E police box and she spited, she continuously spit about 30 minutes even after she spited in the patrol box that was sent to E police box.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers in relation to 112 reporting processing duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing the criminal place

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

1. As to the assertion of mental disorder as to Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution (Consideration favorable circumstances as seen below), the Defendant alleged that he was in a state of mental or physical loss or mental weakness by drinking at the time of the instant crime. As such, according to the records, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime, but the fact that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime is acknowledged; however, the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

As such, the above assertion is rejected.

The reason for sentencing is that the defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, took a bath and assault against the police officer without any special reason. In light of the background and method of the crime, it is favorable that the nature of the crime is not easy and that there is a history of punishment for violent crime.