A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On April 19, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment due to bodily injury resulting from confinement in the Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court on April 19, 201, and the execution of the sentence was completed in the Western District Court on January 14, 2012.

Around 20:00 on December 24, 2012, the Defendant received a demand to present an identification card from E (the age of 25, south) who is a police officer belonging to the House District D District Police Station called out after receiving a report from the Defendant, at the jurisdiction point C, which was called out by the Government-si, the Defendant.

The Defendant expressed to E, a police officer, that he was released from the police for five months, that he was released from the military, that he was released from the military, that he was released from the military, that he was released only from the military police, and that he was released from the military police, and that he was released from the military police, and that he was released from the military police officer, and that he threatened a police officer as he was taken into the military police officer, and that he threatened a police officer, and that the police officer, a police officer who was dispatched, f(33 years old, son) was scambling, and the police officer, who was a police officer, f(33 years old, son) was tight.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on the control of crimes and the maintenance of order.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to criminal records and investigation reports (report on previous records of disposition, results of confirmation, and confirmation of the date of release);

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

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

1. Although the reason for sentencing under Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated offenders is favorable to the Defendant’s confession and reflects the instant crime, and the degree of assault, which is the means of obstruction of performance of official duties, is minor, the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime to be admitting. Considering the Defendant’s habitual criminal records due to the Defendant’s state of taking into account, it is deemed that the risk of repeating the instant crime entailing assault is very high, and in order to establish a state’s legal order and eradicate the light of public authority, such crime of obstruction of official duties needs to be strictly punished.