A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On September 28, 2016, around 21:15, the Defendant assaulted the face and return of the police officer at a time on several occasions, on the ground that the Defendant, while getting on a police vehicle with the police officer D belonging to the above C Zone to go on to the scene of traffic accident, he requested the police vehicle to open the door of the police vehicle, even though the Defendant, who was aboard the police vehicle with the above C Zone D, was at the latest opened the door of the police vehicle, by getting off the police vehicle from the police vehicle.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers on the maintenance of public peace and order.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 136 of the Election of Imprisonment;

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

3. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of probation and community service order;

1. The scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines [decision of type] of the obstruction of performance of official duties: There is no person who has a category 1 (the obstruction of performance of official duties or coercion of official duties) (the area of recommendation and sentence] (the area of recommendation and sentence), the basic area of the punishment, and the imprisonment for not less than 6 months and not more

2. Since the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, such as this case’s sentence, is a crime that undermines the function of the State by nullifying the legitimate exercise of public authority, there is a need for strict punishment in order to establish national legal order and eradicate the light of public authority.

The defendant has been punished several times by committing violent crimes by committing violent crimes.

On the other hand, however, the defendant seems to have committed the crime of this case as a contingency and impulsely, due to the fact that he has lost his ability to refrain from drinking, and the crime of this case has been committed, and his mistake has been divided.

There was no record that the defendant was punished for committing obstruction of the performance of official duties.

All kinds of sentencing revealed in the trial process of this case, which are disadvantageous or favorable to the above mentioned above.