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

At around 09:10 on April 7, 2019, the Defendant heard the phrase “I am off the Dog” from the police box of the Gyeongsan Police Station C, which was called “I am off the Dog” and the phrase “I am off the Dog” that was called “I am off the Dog, I am off the Dog”, which was called “I am off the Dog, I am am. I am on the 7th floor of the Defendant’s residence located in Sinsan City.”

Accordingly, the defendant saw the above steel gars of her hand when she had the left arms and the right bridge of her patrolman, and met the right bridge of Do to the right bridge.

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous articles and interfered with legitimate execution of duties of police officers in relation to the prevention and suppression of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused (including F statement section);

1. Each police statement of E and D;

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Articles 144 (1) and 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. In light of all the circumstances indicated in the record of the instant case, including the fact that the Defendant suffered from the above mental illness for a long time, such as receiving hospitalized treatment from the Defendant due to her on-site illness, and that no special motive for committing the instant crime was found, it is determined that the Defendant was in a state of lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions due to her on-site illness at the time of the instant crime. The Defendant and the defense counsel asserted that the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder due to her on-site illness. However, in light of the Defendant’s investigative agency and the Defendant’s attitude of statement in this court, it does not appear that the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder beyond the state of mental disorder at the time of the instant crime.

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62-2. (b) probationed rice.