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 became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On March 26, 2013, at around 7:20 on March 26, 2013, the Defendant made a statement to the assistant assistant E of the above police box to the said assistant E affiliated with the above police box, on the grounds that the police officer took up the F’s statement while hearing only F’s statement, and voluntarily prepared documents without hearing his statement, and that he took a bath for 15 minutes on the ground that he voluntarily prepared the documents.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police boxes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

1. A written statement;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

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

1. The defendant's defense counsel's assertion of the defense counsel under Article 62 (1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution (hereinafter referred to as "the grounds for sentencing") did not notify the defendant at the time when he arrests the defendant in the act of committing an act of committing an offense, that he could appoint a defense counsel. In addition, the defendant's arrest cannot be viewed as legitimate execution of official duties as an illegal arrest of the act of committing an act of arresting the defendant because he did not have any necessity to arrest the person in the act of committing an offense. The defendant asserts that the act of the defendant constitutes self-defense or legitimate act and thus,

Therefore, first, according to the health stand and all the evidence mentioned above, E at the time of the instant case is recognized as having given notice to the defendant that he can appoint a defense counsel, so the above assertion by the defense counsel is without merit.

Next, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the above evidence, are the Defendant at the time of the instant case.