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 May 31, 2017, 05:10 on the street in front of the “DPC room in Chuncheon City,” the Defendant sent a disturbance to the Defendant, “I ambling from the Defendant, who was reported by 112 and was dispatched to the site from F in charge of the position of the Chuncheon Police Station Ear, the Defendant sent to the site,” and “I ambling from the Defendant to the Defendant who was requested to return home from F in charge of the position of the Chuncheon Police Station Ear.”

The victims of spits are spits or spits in the face of the victim F, and assaults the victims of spits in the face of G in the circumstances where the victim belongs to the same district area.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning field measures by police officers according to 112 report.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness H, F and G;

1. Application of video CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

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 Competition;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

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

1. The defendant and his/her defense counsel's assertion on the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act did not have any desire at the time of the defendant, and spits in the process of responding to the illegal arrest of police officers. Thus, the defendant's act constitutes a justifiable act, and the police officers did not notify of the principle of spits at the time of arrest.

However, in full view of the police officers F and H’s respective legal statements and the results of the reproduction of video CDs taken by the Defendant’s criminal act and the situation at the time of arrest as seen earlier, the court notified the police officers who recommended the Defendant to return home of the following principles: (a) the spitor police officers who arrested the Defendant through interference with the performance of official duties; and (b) the police officers at the time at the time have the right to appoint the Defendant and counsel; and (c) the police officers were the Defendant before the spitoring the Defendant.