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 March 5, 2018, the Defendant: (a) received a report from the C seafarer accommodation located in Jindo-gun B, Jindo-gun on March 5, 2018; (b) received a report from the Defendant, who was dispatched to the site, and sent the Defendant to the scene after receiving the report from E (48 taxes) of the police box belonging to the Jindo-gun Police Station D (48). The Defendant took a bath view that “the Defendant: (a) math, mathing inside the body of the Defendant, math, Ra, flaps, and flabing down the body of the Defendant; and (c) flabed by taking the flab and shoulder of the said E in his hand.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement protocol by the police for E;

1. Place of work;

1. 112 A list of reported cases;

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

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order;

1. The basic area of the sentencing criteria [the scope of the recommended punishment] and the basic area of the Class 1 (Interference with the performance of public duties and coercion of duties): Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than six months from one year and six months (the person who is subject to special sentencing]; and

2. The Defendant, without any special reason, committed an act of violence against a police officer who is performing legitimate duties.

Therefore, it seems that the legitimate execution of duties was considerably hindered, and the mental shock of police officers in the process of performing official duties was considerably significantly significant.

The defendant has not yet received a letter from a damaged police officer.

On the other hand, however, the defendant recognizes all of his mistake and reflects.

It seems that the defendant does not seem to have committed the crime of this case in a planned manner, and rather has caused the crime of this case to be somewhat contingent.

There is no criminal history against the defendant.

In addition, considering the age of the defendant, the circumstances of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, all of the sentencing reasons indicated in the trial of this case, it is ordered as ordered.