A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten 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

On September 6, 2015, the Defendant was at his house located in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si on September 6, 2015.

Although having received 112 reports and received warnings from police officers E and F belonging to the Kimpo Police Station D police station, which called Dog National Police Agency, to have a knife a female-friendly resident number of Ngr. He knows, and could contact with Ngr. He did not comply with it. He did not report the appearance he had a knife, and reported the knife (the total length of 30 centimeters, the knife length of 19 centimeters) in his hand, and threatened E with the desire of "I Dog, I would like to have a knife a knife, I am."

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous objects and interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on seizure records;

1. Article 144 (1) and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the relevant criminal facts and the selection of punishment;

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 ( considered circumstances favorable to the defendant);

1. Protective observation and community service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 48(1)1 of the Confiscation Criminal Act, the Defendant asserted that, although the Defendant cited a knife at the time, there was no desire or threat to the police officers in mobilization, and that the police officers’ measures under the influence of the Defendant’s knife by using the test knife were unfair.

According to the above evidence, ① the Defendant’s wife reported 112 that he knife knife the Defendant’s knife, and ② the police officer E called upon receiving a report.