A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six 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. On June 4, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 20:15, the Defendant was unable to avoid a disturbance, such as putting in the floor, on the floor, the victim D (Inn, 57 years of age) in the Suwon-si, Suwon-si C, while drinking alcohol in the “Ecafeteria” operated by the victim D (Inn, 57 years of age).

At this time, the defendant caused the victim's body to put up a defect as soon as possible, so far as the victim's left arms are hard, and the victim's body was pushed down by hand.

As a result, the Defendant inflicted injury on the victim, such as the left part of the treatment days, the part of the left part of the treatment days, and the blood transfusion.

2. 공무집행방해 피고인은 2013. 6. 4. 20:50경 위 ‘E식당’에서, 112신고를 받고 출동한 수원중부경찰서 F지구대 소속 경찰관인 경위 G이 피고인을 상해죄의 현행범인으로 체포하려고 하자 위 G에게 “경찰관이라고 이런 씨발새끼야!”라고 소리치며 발로 G의 급소 부위를 1회 걷어차고, 손톱으로 G의 왼팔을 수회 할퀴고, 위 F지구대 소속 경찰관인 순경 H가 피고인을 제지하려고 하자 손톱으로 위 H의 왼팔을 수회 할퀴고, 발로 H의 오른쪽 발목을 걷어찼다.

As above, the Defendant abused G and H, thereby obstructing the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties concerning the handling of reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on each police statement made to D, H, and G of the injury-taking photographs;

1. Relevant Articles 257(1) and 257(1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor concerning 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 on the stay of execution (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Taking into account the fact that the defendant reflects his depth, the first offender, and the fact

1. The Defendant, at the time of the instant crime, was drunk to determine the Defendant’s assertion of Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act, was in a state of mental disorder.