A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On November 14, 2014, at around 16:50, the Defendant was in contact with the public official C belonging to the Seoul Northern-gu Welfare Policy and the relevant public official C of the Seoul Northern-gu, and was found to be the welfare policy and office of the Gwangju North-gu office located in the Northbuk-gu, Gwangju-gu, without drinking at around 17:00 on the same day, while drinking at around 17:0, the Defendant exceeded the Defendant’s mother-child, who was a non-life-based public official, who was engaged in life-related counseling service at the former North-gu office, and went off the Defendant’s mother-child, who was a public official of the indefinite-gu office, and went off the computer monitor used by his female, and interfered with the legitimate performance of duties concerning the welfare management and support of the former public official.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each statement of F and C;

1. An investigation report (related to the verification of the status of a public official who works for three inorganic contracts for victims);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on damage and field pictures;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime concerned;

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

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the favorable circumstances of sentencing) is a case where the defendant interfered with the execution of official duties by assaulting public officials in the course of performing official duties. The protected legal interests of the crime of this case, which is the necessity of the protection of official duties, cannot be deemed to be less than the personal interests of the defendant. In light of the fact that the defendant committed the crime of this case without being aware that he had been punished several times due to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, violence, etc. in the past, even though he had the record of punishment several times, it is necessary to make

However, it seems that the defendant's mistake is divided and reflected, and in particular, the victim public officials agree with the damaged public officials.