A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

At around 23:50 on November 26, 2016, the Defendant, while crossing the road under the influence of alcohol on the front of C in Jeju Island, and around that time, served as a pilot and assaulting E by a DNA taxi engineer E who was operating on the road without any justifiable reason. Since then, on the road adjacent to the above, the Defendant was present at a slope G belonging to the 112 patrol group of the Jeju Western Police Station, which was on the duty of the 112 patrol, during the 112 patrol, and led the Defendant to the Defendant and the Defendant’s assault while getting out of the patrol vehicle, and the Defendant was able to do so, and the Defendant was able to do so.

씨 발 새끼야, 한주먹도 안 되는 새끼가 일대일로 붙으면 말도 못할 짭새 새끼가 "라고 욕설을 하며 양손으로 G의 가슴 부위를 수회 밀치고 오른손으로 G의 멱살을 잡아 수차례 흔드는 등 폭행하였다.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the maintenance of order of police officers working at 112 patrols.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each statement of G and H;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on investigation reporting;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion regarding the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code of the Social Service Order refers to the assertion that the Defendant and his defense counsel had suffered mental and physical loss or mental weakness by drinking at the time of the instant crime.

According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated, even though the defendant was aware of drinking at the time of the crime, considering the circumstances such as the process of exercising the tangible force against the taxi engineer prior to the crime in this case, the background and form of the crime in this case, and the Defendant’s speech and behavior after being taken into custody after the arrest of a flagrant offender, it cannot be deemed that the defendant did not have or lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions. Thus, the above assertion is rejected.

The reason for sentencing.