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 17, 2017, from around 01:10 to the same day 01:20 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) while drinking mixed alcoholic beverages from the D packing horse operated by the Victim C (V, 55) located in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon; (b) the Defendant was able to cover the Victim’s “Nea 1 year ago.”

“Along with sound, the rupture kids the rupture of plastic ruptures on which the rupture was cut, and obstructed the tasks of the ruptures of the ruptures of the ruptures by force.

2. In the time, at the place, as described in paragraph 1, the Defendant suffered from the damaged person during the disturbance as described in paragraph 1 at the time, and at the place, the Defendant inflicted an injury on the injured person, by dumping the victim’s face and dumping the epib, thereby decing the victim’s face, thereby causing approximately two weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. To report on the crimes of violence and fraud accused;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a criminal investigation report (Attachment of film materials to employees posted at the package of D);

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 257 of the Criminal Act, the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime;

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 stay of execution (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. Circumstances unfavorable to the reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act: The crime of assaulting a victim and obstructing his/her duties is not good due to minor reasons that are difficult to understand (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do1448, Apr. 1, 201; Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1339, Apr. 1, 201; Supreme Court Decision 201Do328, Apr. 21, 201).