A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On May 15, 2019, the Defendant sentenced the Seoul Western District Court to four months of imprisonment for the obstruction of performance of official duties, and completed the execution of the sentence on September 13, 2019.

On January 16, 2020, at around 01:16, the Defendant, on the front side of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, sent a report by 112, stating that “Iber land ” was under the influence of alcohol, was on board and returned to the patrol vehicle (net 21) by the police officers belonging to the Eunpyeong Police Station C District Unit of Seoul, Eunpyeong Police Station around 01:50 on the same day, the Defendant used a assault by inserting the hand by the gap of the protection wall installed between the front seat and the rear seat of the police officer E who belongs to the said district unit, and divided the face of the said E by hand.

Accordingly, the Defendant assaulted a police officer as above and interfered with the police officer’s 112-report processing duties and legitimate performance of duties concerning the protection of the people’s life and body.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the defendant's prosecution;

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

1. A written statement;

1. Notification of departments related to the 112 Incident Report, copies of public officials' certificates, and photographs; and

1. Investigation report (verification of black stay images);

1. Previous convictions indicated in the judgment: Criminal history records, probationary records, personal confinement status, application of Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime. Article 136 (Selection of Imprisonment or Imprisonment);

1. In light of the background, means, and method of the crime of this case, the defendant's act committed before and after the crime of this case, which can be identified by each evidence of the judgment as to the claim for mental and physical disability of Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated offenders, it cannot be deemed that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, but the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions. Thus, the above claim for mental and physical disability of this case seems to be against the defendant's acknowledgement of the crime