A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four months.

Criminal facts

On January 21, 2018, at around 21:35, the Defendant, on the street in front of the building C in the Haak-gun, Haaknam-gun, the Defendant, upon receiving a report of 112 that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, assaulted the Defendant’s head part of the E on two occasions with the floor of the right hand, with the floor of the right hand.

As a result, the defendant assaulted police officers and interfered with their legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Reasons for sentencing selective sentence of imprisonment with prison labor;

1. The scope of punishment by imprisonment: One month to five years;

2. The scope of recommended punishment according to the sentencing criteria: Imprisonment with prison labor for one month to eight months.

(a) Determination of types: One type (Interference with the execution of public duties/ coercion of duties) that interferes with the performance of public duties;

(b) Special sentencing factors: Where the degree of assault, intimidation, deceptive scheme, or interference with official duties is insignificant (a factor to be mitigated);

(c) Determination of the territory of recommendation: Reduction territory;

3. Determination of sentence: A defendant who has been sentenced to imprisonment for four months has been punished by a fine due to a crime of interference with the execution of official duties by committing assault against a police officer who was dispatched to the police station in 2011 as stated in its reasoning;

In addition, the defendant has been punished three times due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving), and the last previous conviction is punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than six months, but the execution of the punishment has been deferred for two years, which became final and conclusive on April 26, 2017.

However, the defendant again committed a crime of interference with the execution of official duties under the influence of alcohol during the period of the above suspension of execution.

In particular, the Defendant had been aware of the fact that he was unable to properly control his behavior in the course of being punished in relation to drinking more than one time, but did not interfere with the performance of official duties in the judgment.