A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal history] On April 29, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to one year to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of road traffic law (drinking driving) at the Goyang Branch of the Jung-gu District Court on March 11, 2017 and completed the execution of the sentence.

[Criminal facts] The Defendant committed a crime on December 11, 2017 at a multi-household housing building located in C at Paju on December 21, 2017, and at the same time, four male persons are enclosed.

19 shall be changed to 119.

“A” means a defect in which a slope E belonging to the police box of the pakju Police Station, who was dispatched to the site after receiving a report of 112, intends to verify the state of a person who takes the floor at the site and the background of dispute, etc., and prevents it from standing in the corridor, and “a Chewing sar and emergency vehicle will go.”

If the police did not know why he did not:

In order to promptly take the bath, and to confirm the reported matters, E shall disregard the demand to turn off, and further, “the death or death shall be discarded, not by law.”

“I would like to enter the drinking house, and continued to sell the parts of the above E with the hand floor of the A, as was sealed, thereby obstructing the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of the 112 reported case by assaulting E who is a police official, and by assaulting E who is a police official.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each police statement made to the witness E, F, G, and H respective legal statements 1 E, F, G, and H:

1. The 112 reported case handling table and place of service;

1. Previous convictions: (A) a response to inquiries, such as criminal history, and a report of investigation (a) (a) (a) a copy of the judgment of conviction of repeated crime, etc.) (a) a defendant and his defense counsel asserts that the police officer dispatched at the time of the instant case has no assaulted the police officer.

However, there are some parts of the statements made by E, F, G, and H, a police officer, at the time of the instant case, in this court and the investigative agency, and in the case of H’s statements, there are no parts that are inconsistent with the investigative agency and this court. However, the above E, F, G, and H’s attitude of statements at the court or the overall contents of the statements concerning the situation before and after the instant case.