A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, 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 May 7, 2014, from around 00:10 to around 00:35 of the same day, the Defendant assaulted the driver of the vehicle on which the Defendant was aboard, with the body of the police officer as the body of the Defendant, by talking that, “I am off, spath, spath, spath, spath, spath, and d”, “I am off, I am out, I am out, I am off, I am off, I am off, I am spath, I am., I am.”

Accordingly, the police officer arrested the defendant as a flagrant offender under the suspicion of obstruction of performance of official duties, and assaulted the police officer's face on the face of the police officer, such as spiting and spiting spit, etc., where the defendant was spit in the face of the police officer.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the police officer's drinking control and the arrest of flagrant offenders.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Application of the police protocol law to C

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following factors of sentencing shall be taken into account):

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

1. The scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines [the scope of the punishment for the obstruction of performance of official duties]. The punishment for the obstruction of official duties shall be limited to the punishment for the obstruction of official duties. The punishment for the obstruction of official duties shall be limited to six months to one year;

2. In order to establish the legal order of the country where the sentence was rendered and eradicate the light of the public authority, there are extenuating circumstances, such as the Defendant’s need for strict punishment for the crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties, and the fact that the nature of the crime is not good in light of the circumstances of the instant crime or the content of the instant crime. However, the Defendant’s confession of the instant crime was against the mistake, and the Defendant’s history of the same crime