A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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 24, 2014, at around 33, 201:50, the Defendant: (a) carried out a victim C (the 54 years of age and south) who was under influence of alcohol at the vicinity of 144-gil, the Chang-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, without any particular reason; (b) carried out a breath of the part of the victim by drinking the victim once, leaving the part of the victim’s body up to the breath, and bucking the victim’s arms, and then plicking the victim’s arms, and plicking the victim’s upper wall that requires treatment for about 20 days on the left side of the victim.

2. At the above time and place of the obstruction of performance of official duties, the Defendant was asked questions from E and F, a police official belonging to the Suwon East Police Station D District D District D District D, which was dispatched upon receipt of a report, by hand, pushed down the E’s chest part by hand, and plup up and pl up the F’s shoulder part by hand, and the F’s shoulder part by hand.

In this way, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of police officers' duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to F and C;

1. 112. Report withdrawn lists;

1. Police investigation report (the sequence 4 in list of evidence);

1. The Defendant alleged that he was in a mental and physical state under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime. However, in light of the background leading up to the instant crime, the means and method of committing the instant crime, and the circumstances after committing the instant crime, the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions by under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.

It is difficult to see that the Defendant was in a very weak or weak state, and even if the Defendant was drunk at the time of the instant crime, in light of the Defendant’s criminal records, etc., it is determined that the Defendant did not refrain from drinking despite having been well aware that the Defendant was highly likely to commit violent acts when drinking, and that this led to the instant crime without restricting the ability to take responsibility under Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act.