A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On November 18, 2017, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol around 00:43 on November 18, 2017, entered the Jeonsan Police Station D police box located in Jeonsan-gu C.

Defendant 1 was required to return home from the police officers who were on duty at the above D police box, and “this is the 20 crime before and after the police box.”

Doz. Doz. Doz.

“Astreh,” and “Astreh, flag shall be patched to the assistant E belonging to the above police box.”

“I am her bath,” and her hand at one time her left side of E her hand.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the maintenance of public order E, who is a police officer.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of damaged parts;

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. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines [the types of decisions] and the scope of the recommended punishment [the scope of punishment for recommendations] that there is no type 1 (Interference with and Forced Performance of Official Duties) (the scope of punishment for recommendations] (the scope of punishment for recommendations] from June to June (the basic area);

2. In light of the fact that the Defendant was subject to criminal punishment several times as a violent crime, that there was a history of having been punished by a fine by insulting a police officer, and that the Defendant committed any contingent crime under the influence of alcohol, but the Defendant’s speech and behavior revealed in the course of committing the crime, considering that the police agency’s well-known that the police officer was in the course of performing public duties, it may be deemed that the Defendant would go against the crime.

However, there are some favorable circumstances such as the fact that the degree of violence is not severe, that the defendant recognized his mistake and reflects his depth, that the defendant committed a crime against a police officer, that the police officer wanted to leave the defendant's seat, and that there is no record of punishment for a crime interfering with the execution of official duties.

The above circumstances and the defendant's age, sex, and behavior.