A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Of the facts charged of this case, the prosecution against assault is dismissed.

Punishment of the crime

On August 21, 2017, at the main point of “C” located in B B of the Southern Military Station B of the Republic of Korea on August 21, 2017, the Defendant reported 112 of the assault case, and sent out to the same place, to E, a police officer of the military police box affiliated with the military police station D of the Republic of Korea, who was called out to the scene, as the Defendant:

Irrith of death.

"라고 욕설을 하며 E의 우측 정강이 부위를 발로 2회 걷어차고, 계속하여 그러한 피고인을 제지하는 위 파출소 소속 경찰 관인 경위 F의 우측 정강이를 발로 1회 걷어찼다.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the prevention, suppression, and investigation of the above police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of each police statement protocol to E and F;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties) of the same Act;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. On the other hand, the Defendant again committed the instant crime even though he had been punished several times due to the same kind of crime, and the Defendant did not recover any damage to the said crime until now. The part dismissing the public prosecution is an unfavorable circumstance, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime; and (b) the fact that the Defendant had already been punished several times due to the same type of crime.

1. On August 21, 2017, the Defendant: (a) refused to pay the drinking value after drinking alcohol at the main point of “C” located on B-B of the Southern-gun, Southern-gun, B-B; (b) avoided disturbance; (c) demanded payment of the drinking value to the Defendant, G (31 tax) who is the business owner of the said main point; and (d) demanded payment of the drinking value to the Defendant, who is the victim G (31 tax) who is the business owner of the said main point; and (e) whether he “packs”;

C. C. C. C. B. B. B. B. D. D., the victim’s side of the back water and the back water each time, and the victim’s side of the back water and the back water were assaulted once by walking the victim’s side of the right.

2. The above facts charged are crimes falling under Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act and cannot be prosecuted against the express will of the victim, and the prosecution of this case is instituted.