beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On May 4, 2015, the Defendant’s “D cafeteria” operated by the Defendant in Daegu Dong-gu, Daegu-gu, about 22:50 on May 4, 2015, requires consultation as the customer does not have a drinking value.
“The Defendant directly reported 112 and sent to the site, b. on the ground that two police officers, such as the Daegu Eastern Police Station EdistrictF belonging to the police station of the Dong-gu Police Station, the police officer, do not receive the drinking value at his/her own request, and b. “I will receive only KRW 50 per Macju, and there is a f.e., for whom no money was paid.”
The police officers: Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz.
We will look at whether the report is made by the Human Rights Commission.
A brub flob flob, flob, etc., the flob flob flob, and the flob of this F while carrying an article into the sloping F, the flob of this F, continuously walking her bridge, and the flobing of the bridge of the slope G to stop this, was assaulted, such as the flobing.
Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers in relation to the prevention, suppression and investigation of police officers' crimes.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Each legal statement of the witness H, F and G;
1. Each police statement made to F, G, and H;
1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted to the effect that the defendant did not commit a crime of interference with the performance of official duties because he was arrested and injured by the defendant without notifying the police officer F and G of his desire or the police officer as stated in the facts charged at the time of the instant case. Rather, according to the consistent statements made by F, G, H, etc. of the victimized police officer F, and H, according to the consistent statements made by the above police officer F, G, etc., the defendant interfered with the performance of official duties by the above police officers related to the handling of 112 reported duties, and the above police officers interfered with the performance of official duties by assaulting the above police officers as stated in the facts charged at the time of the instant case.