A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Seized evidence subparagraph 1 shall be forfeited from the accused.

Punishment of the crime

around 00:08 on November 3, 2018, the Defendant returned to the Republic of Korea through E, and F, the circumstances leading up to the assignment of the D Zone E and the police officer called out after receiving a report of 112 on the drinking value.

On November 3, 2018, around 00:43, the Defendant stated the victim police officer’s real name in the indictment of this case, and the victim police officer’s indictment of this case of the case of the 2019Nodan12, the indictment of this case is written under the name of the victim police officer, and the crime of law is stated under the real name of the victim police officer in the indictment of this case of this case of the 2019Nodan183, the indictment of this case where the victim police officer was indicted for unification under the real name of the victim and the fact of law is stated.

I am kn't kn't kn't kn't kn't kn't kn't kn't kn't 28't kn't kn't kn't kn't kn't kn't kn't kn't kn't kn't k'

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous articles and interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers in relation to the dissemination of situation and civil petition response.

At around 19:32 March 2, 2019, the Defendant returned to the Republic of Korea on the issue of food value at the J located in Changwon-si, Masan-si, Masan-si, and returned to the Republic of Korea on March 2, 2019.

On March 2, 2019, the Defendant, at around 21:00, committed assault, such as: (a) protesting against the aforementioned measure taken in the Republic of Korea; (b) discovered that the head of the police station located in the Mandong Police Station, H is working in the state of the situation; and (c) pointing out that “Is the width or inside the knife, at that time, it was erroneous for the head of the police station located in the knife zone; and (d) expressed that Is the face of the knife at one time at that time.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the situation dissemination of police officers and civil petition response duties.