A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On November 2, 2015, the police officer D and police officer of the Suwon Police Station C District shall receive a report from 112 to the effect that “the Defendant fright at the main station under the influence of alcohol,” and tried to send the case to “G” main points located in the Suwon Police Station F of the Suwon Police Station, and then move the case to another patrol place around 23:05 on the same day.

However, the Defendant: (a) had been on board the police officer, requesting the said police officer to check whether the said police officer's license was granted; (b) had been on board the police officer; and (c) requested the said police officer to check whether the said police officer's license was granted

H Net 13 Nos. 13 interfered with patrols to prevent the patrols from departing from the place, and E tried to move the Defendant to another place after getting the Defendant to turn on the front of the patrols.

On November 2, 2015, at around 23:05, the Defendant used the Defendant’s 269 bank in front of the Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, 2015, and used the Defendant’s flab before the patrol, and used the Defendant’s flab to move to another patrol place, with his hand, and flab the E’s blab.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of official duties concerning the prevention and suppression of police officers' crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. A report on investigation (to hear statements from a victimized police officer and report);

1. Application of the video CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The defendant's defense counsel on the argument of mental and physical weakness under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (including the fact that there was a record of being fined three times due to the crime of violence, but there was no record of being punished due to the crime of interference with the performance of official duties, there was no criminal record exceeding the fine, and there was a violation of one's own mistake). As such, the defendant asserts to the effect that the defendant was in a state of mental and physical weakness under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, and according to the records, the defendant