A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six 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 October 8, 2016, at around 03:00, the Defendant returned to the 111-dong and 13th floor, an apartment building under the influence of alcohol, and upon receiving a report from 112, the Defendant’s slope E and Patrol F, a police officer belonging to the Korea Coast Guard D Zone, called up on October 8, 2016, and called up on 112;

Doh and D. 5 meters of the satis satis, which are dangerous things that were adjacent to the satisfic of the satisf and 5 meters of the satisf, “satisfing off close satisf, fat away,” while threatening the above E and F face, and continuously threatening the above E and F face, and continuously talks with the Defendant, “I will see the Defendant’s “I will see.”

At the same time, there was assaulting two bicycles who were in the above E and F stairs f, she was fleeped.

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous articles and interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on reporting 112 and crime control.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. E statements;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (a written statement of shots G);

1. Article 144 (1) and Article 136 (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 Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, and was in a state of severe loss or mental and physical weakness due to psychological unstable condition at the time of the instant crime.

The argument is asserted.

However, according to each of the above evidence, even though the defendant was in a state of drinking at the time of the crime of this case, it cannot be seen that the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to alcohol and psychological state, and therefore, the defendant's person is the defendant.