A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six 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

1. On June 27, 2015, the Defendant interfering with his/her duties enters the “D” operated by the victim C in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-nam, with the influence of alcohol.

During drinking of a State and bean water, the victim who ordered the State and bean water shall be deemed to have been iced before the State and bean water is speak.

In doing so, without any reason, the victim interfered with the victim’s business by avoiding disturbance and by force while putting the victim’s desire to read “A” and “I am unable to do so. I am to do so.”

2. On June 27, 2015, the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties at the F main parking lot located in Chungcheongnam-nam, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-gun, and upon receiving a report, H, a police officer of the police station G major police station assigned to the police station, asked the Defendant about his personal information and asked the Defendant as to whether the Defendant “A police officer is a police officer.”

Chewing swelves her place of origin.

“Along with the desire to see “,” the chest of the said H was pushed down by hand.

Accordingly, the defendant assaulted a police officer to interfere with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the investigation of a police officer's case.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of each police statement protocol to C and H

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business), Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with the performance of public duties) and the choice of imprisonment for each crime;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The scope of the final sentence due to multiple concurrent crimes for which the basic area of the first type of the crime (Interference with Business) [the scope of the recommended punishment] for the reasons of sentencing in Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act for the protection and observation [the scope of the punishment] is limited to the violation of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, and Article 62-2 of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Crimes (Interference with Business) [the scope of the punishment] for which there is no person subject to special sentencing] [the scope of the punishment] for the violation of Article 62-1 of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Crimes (Interference with Business] [the scope of the punishment] for the violation of Article 1 of the basic area (the scope of the recommended punishment] for the violation of Article 62-2, and Article 62-2 of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Crimes (Interference with Business]. However, the defendant did not have any power over the suspension of the execution of his/her duties