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

1. On May 11, 2017, while under the influence of alcohol around 02:0, the Defendant found the victim E (the 49-year old) who is a security guard in Busan Shipping Daegu D Apartment, and expressed the victim’s face to the victim E (the 49-year old) without any justifiable reason, “hing the victim’s face several times by hand, flabing him/her flabing him/her, killing flabbing him/her, and pushed him/her over the entrance in the direction of the entrance, causing the victim’s left arms to face the victim’s loss.

As a result, the Defendant committed multiple types of depressions and coordinatess that need to be treated for about two weeks.

2. The Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties at the above date, time, place, and the police officer G belonging to the F police station, who was called out after receiving a report of 112 while avoiding the disturbance, confirmed the occurrence of the instant case. G saw “Chewing few few fe few few few few few few few few few b

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of reported cases and the maintenance of order by police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement protocol with respect to E and G;

1. An explanatory invoice;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes in which each investigation report, ctv video is recorded;

1. Relevant Article 136 of the Criminal Act, Articles 136 (1) and 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

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. In light of the fact that the Defendant was the principal offender at the time of the instant crime with the reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act, the instant crime by the Defendant itself is very poor (the circumstances after the arrest of the offender in the instant crime are very poor). Furthermore, the Defendant has two previous criminal records of the same kind of injury and has several previous criminal records (which exceeds the fine among them), and the Defendant has several previous criminal records of this type of crime (which includes the record of the crime exceeding the fine). However, the Defendant’s mistake and reflects his fault late, and the crime of injury is committed.