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

1. Around 07:04 on August 23, 2015, the Defendant insultd the above police officer by openly taking a public bath to the following police officers: (a) the Defendant, who was called up after receiving a report, for the issue of refund of accommodation charges at the cel located in Masan City, 07:04, on the part of the proprietor and the Defendant’s day-working F, etc., while having been called up for the Defendant: (b) the Defendant: (c) provided that the Defendant was aware of the proprietor and the Defendant’s day-working; and (d) provided that the Defendant was aware of the proprietor and the Defendant’s day-working; and (c) provided that the Defendant was aware of the proprietor and the Defendant’s day-working.”

2. When the Defendant was expelled from the above police officer at the above time, at the same place, and at the same time and place as above, the Defendant expressed the above police officer’s bath to “the spaws that have to grow, spaws,” and obstructed the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties in relation to the prevention and suppression of the above police officer’s crime on one occasion by drinking the chest of the above police officer at once and on one hand.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. A written statement;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (to attach violence by police officers and screen pictures);

1. Relevant Article 311 of the Criminal Act, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the history of punishment for the crime of violence committed in 2013 under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Act, including the degree and degree of violence committed by the Defendant for the reason of sentencing, degree of a decline in the victim’s social evaluation due to the Defendant’s insulting speech, degree of interference with the execution of official duties, and Defendant’s speech and behavior at the time of the instant crime, which does not seem to constitute a contingent crime; the instant crime appears to have been committed by the police at the time of the instant crime; the fact that the Defendant did not receive a letter from the victimized police officer; the Defendant did not know of