A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On April 14, 2018, at around 23:45, the Defendant: (a) sent to the 107 Dong-ro, 365 Sin-gu, Busan, Haak-gu, Haak-gu, Haak-gu, 365 Sin-dong, 107, the Defendant, upon receiving a report from 112 that the Defendant was under the influence of the influence of alcohol, and was asked of the circumstances of the instant case from Dan-gu, Busan, Man-gu, the Defendant: (b) threatened the Defendant with the Defendant’s hand to “Isk-in, Hask-in, Hask-in, Hask-in, Hask-kak, Hask-gu, Hask-gu, Hask-gu, Hask-gu, Hask-gu, Hask-kaked, and

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of report by the police officer.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made with respect to E and D;

1. Application of investigation reports (13 pages of evidence records), CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

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. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 59 of the Act on the Observation, etc. of Protection and Order to Attend Courses;

1. Type 1 (Interference with the performance of public duties and coercion of duties) in the basic area (from June to June) of the sentencing criteria (a person who has no special sentencing person).

2. The Defendant, who has been sentenced to punishment for violent crimes several times, committed the instant crime again despite the fact that he/she had been punished for interference with the performance of official duties, and the instant crime committed in uniform and constitutes assault against a police officer who performed official duties, and the nature of the instant crime is not good in that it impedes the exercise of legitimate public authority that should be strictly executed, and the Defendant recognized the instant crime, and took into account favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime in depth, and that the Defendant committed the instant crime in contingency under the influence of alcohol, and taking into account the favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime in contingency, as well as the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime in the course of the records and changes thereof, and shall determine