A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On August 16, 2016, the Defendant, within the scope of “D” in Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, with the Defendant’s notification that he did not pay the drinking value, took the bath to F of the World Police Station Earb of the Daejeon-gu, the Defendant sent to F of the World Police Station Earb of the Daejeon-gu, “A impule who would be dead and discarded,” and received at one head’s chrof.

As such, the Defendant assaulted police officers to interfere with the legitimate performance of duties by police officers on the control of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

1. G statements;

1. Reporting on the arrest of the case;

1. Investigation report (verification of a video file);

1. A report on investigation;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on the job site of E earth;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 136(1) of the relevant Act and Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts and Article 136(1) of the Selection of Punishment Act (selected to imprisonment) is against the defendant's time to commit the crime of this case, the defendant committed the crime of this case by contingency while taking advantage of the defendant, sickly supporting the mother, etc., under the favorable circumstances to the defendant, the defendant has been punished three times (two times a fine and one time a suspended sentence) due to the same crime, the defendant can have criminal records related to violence, and the defendant can have criminal records related to violence. On November 6, 2014, the defendant was sentenced to two years of suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of interference with the performance of official duties at the Seoul Northern District Court on November 14, 2014, and the above judgment became final and conclusive. The fact that the defendant repeatedly committed the same crime of this case without being aware of during the suspended sentence period, and the crime of assaulting the police repeatedly performing official duties is not attributable to perform official duties.

It can be seen that there was no agreement with the victimized police officer, that the victimized police officer wanted to punish the defendant, and that there is a lack of efforts by the defendant to recover the damage of the victimized police officer, etc., such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive, means, results, conditions before and after the crime, etc.