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

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On April 9, 2015, around 02:16, the Defendant: (a) 112 reported that “no taxi passenger will occur;” (b) the victim E (the police officer belonging to the Specialized Zone D District of the Incheon Samsan Police Station, which was called out after having received 112 reports on “no taxi passenger will occur; (c) the Defendant: (d) the Defendant: (d) the Defendant: (d) 1string the shoulder to have the Defendant returned to the Defendant; (d) 1string the shoulder; (d) the Defendant 2nding the Defendant; (d) 2nding the Defendant; (e) 2nding the Defendant, 201; (e) the Defendant 3rding the Defendant’s mouth; (e) ; (e) the Defendant 2nding the Defendant at the taxi; (e) ; (e) 3rding the Defendant’s f; (e) f; and (e) obstructed the Defendant’s legitimate performance of duties by assaulting the Defendant; and (e) f) obstructed the Defendant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of each police statement of G and E;

1. Statement of opinion;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of damaged victims;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

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

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The defendant's defense counsel on the defendant's claim of mental suffering from mental illness under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act asserts to the effect that "the defendant was in a state of mental suffering under the influence of alcohol

However, according to the evidence of the judgment, although the fact that the defendant was drunk at the time of committing the crime is recognized, it is not recognized that the defendant had the weak ability to discern things or make decisions. Therefore, the above argument is without merit.

The reason for sentencing [Scope of Recommendation] The obstruction of the performance of official duties (Obstruction of the Performance of Official Duties).