A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight 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.

Punishment of the crime

1. Around March 10, 2016, the Defendant insultingd the victim by openly brupting the victim by openly referring to three persons, including E, on the road in front of the Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government “D” on the road, and having been in dispute with three persons, including E, on the road in front of the said road. Since the Defendant was dispatched to the site after receiving 112 a report and listening to the statements of the relevant persons, he/she was urged by the police box of the Seoul Hyeung Police Station, who was affiliated with the police box of the Seoul Hyeung-gu Police Station, to exchange for three persons, including E, from the victim G at the seat of three persons, including E.

2. The Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties at the time and place specified in the above paragraph 1, and at the same time and place, reported to the scene by 112, who was sent to the scene from the security guards H of the Seoul Hyung-gu Police Station F police box assigned to the scene, to the E, etc., and, as seen above, interfered with

I will be free to know only.

Before doing so, she committed assault, such as she was fluorous, she was fluord by her fluor, she was fluord by her fluor, and was fluord by her hand.

As a result, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties of police officers on the control of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made with respect to G and H;

1. G’s complaint [The defendant alleged that he was in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness so that he could not memory the situation at the time of the crime in this case, but according to each evidence, even though he was found to have drinking a considerable amount of alcohol at the time of the crime in this case, it cannot be seen that the defendant did not have or lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions. Thus, the above argument is rejected.]

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (Interference with the performance of official duties, Selection of imprisonment), and Article 311 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense (a point of insult and 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: