A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten 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 August 13, 2017, the Defendant was dissatisfied with the Defendant’s wife at 301 heading room located in Dabur C around 03:38 on August 13, 2017.

“Absing the victim F(32 32) who is a policeman belonging to the E District District of the Bapo Police Station, who reported the content of 112 and was dispatched to the said site, expressed his desire to see this room as “I see she will do so.” without any justifiable reason. Abscising the victim’s left side with the victim and the victim, and abscison G, who was dispatched with the victim and the victim, forced the Defendant to scisd on the floor, scisfing the Defendant on the floor, and arrested the Defendant as a current offender, she was able to see, “I see this dog, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, and I am on the part of the victim with his head.”

As a result, the defendant interfered with police officers' prevention, suppression and investigation of crimes, and legitimate execution of duties regarding arrest of flagrant offenders, and at the same time, the defendant injured the victim about two weeks of medical treatment, such as injury to face character.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to F and G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the police officer's photographs and investigation reports (Attachment of a medical certificate of injury);

1. Article 136 (1) and Article 257 (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 reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act and the community service order under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order committed a crime of this case using violence even though the defendant was punished several times as a crime related to violence, and the reason for such punishment and the fact that the nature of the crime is not good in light of the circumstances and the content of the obstruction of the performance of official duties. On the other hand, the defendant appears to recognize and reflect the crime of this case, it is a contingent crime, the fact that the defendant is a contingent crime, the police officer subject to the crime, and there is no record of punishment for the same kind of crime.