A defendant shall be punished by detention of 15 days.

Punishment of the crime

On June 30, 2017, the Defendant received a demand for returning home from a police officer of the Category C who was called out after receiving a report from the police officer of the Category C, who was under the influence of the police officer before the convenience store of Part C at the time of a grace period.

At around 20:25 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) stated that the police officers above 20:25 stated “a coffee mar,” and entered the D zone, and did not franc the coffee, and did so to police officers; (b) stated that the police officers “I am, d, d, d, d, d, d, d,” “I am, I am,” and obstructed the disturbance by opening the entrance.

As a result, the defendant committed an act of disturbance in the state of 20 minutes or more, such as marching in the public office.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. A written statement of the main officer;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (to attachCCTV dynamic images);

1. Relevant provisions of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, Article 3(3)1 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, and Article 3(3)1 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, the reason for sentencing of penal detention selection has been punished several times due to the crime of interference with duties and interference with the performance of the same duties. Although there was a record of being punished for the crime of violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, such as the crime of this case in 2016, the crime of this case again committed the crime of this case, and other various sentencing conditions prescribed by Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the defendant's age, sex, sex, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, shall be comprehensively considered.