A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four 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.

Criminal facts

The Defendant, on May 18, 2017, at the front line of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, around 21:25 on May 18, 2017, under the influence of alcohol to E police officers belonging to the Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu Police Station D police box, which is patroled in the Do newsletter, as well as to whether it is breath in this case

"Catherbly, the police officer's flab was flabed by flab, and the police officer's flab was flabed by hand, and the police officer's flab was flabed by hand, and obstructed the police officer's legitimate execution of duties concerning prevention, suppression, and investigation of crime.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the F Statements;

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 stay of execution (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act of the community service order;

1. Where the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines [the scope of the recommended punishment] is minor that interferes with the performance of public duties in the mitigated area of Class 1 (Interference with and Forced Performance of Public Duties) (from August to August) (the special mitigated person];

2. In light of the following: (a) the degree of assault committed by the Defendant on the sentence to a police officer is not somewhat weak; (b) the Defendant was unable to receive a letter from the victimized police officer and did not take measures to recover damage; and (c) the need to strictly punish the Defendant for a crime against public authority, such as interference with the performance of official duties, in order to eradicate a light view of the establishment of national legal order and the state’s light of public authority, etc., the Defendant’s liability is not weak.

However, in light of the fact that the defendant committed the crime in this case and against the mistake, the degree of interference with official duties due to the crime in this case is not significant, the primary offender is the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime in this case, and all of the sentencing conditions stated in the records and arguments, such as circumstances after the crime in this case, shall be determined as ordered.