A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that 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

On June 3, 2014, at around 12:38, the Defendant, upon receiving a report from the C restaurant located in Silung-si B on the 112 that he was under the influence of alcohol, expressed a great voice to customers, etc., and caused the Defendant to be able to go home from police slope E and policeman F.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in front of G and G, 304, who was the Defendant’s residence, obstructed the police officer’s legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of the reported case, on the ground that he spaws, spaws, spaws in front of the house, spaws, spaws, spawns, spawns, spawns, spats the face, spawns, spawns, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made by the police of the F;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing photographing suspects;

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. According to Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on the Suspension of Execution") of the Criminal Procedure, the following factors are considered: (a) spiting the nature of the police officer's face in order to protect the defendant in a state of taking the reason for sentencing; (b) spiting the nature of the police officer's face; (c) obstructing the performance of official duties by spiting him; (d) the Defendant’s violent crime force is six times; (e) the Defendant’s serious mistake is against the defendant; (e) the damaged police officer’s desire to take advantage of the defendant’s wife against the defendant; (e) the family condition that the defendant, alone, raises children; and (e) all other sentencing conditions specified in the argument of this case