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

1. On August 6, 2014, at around 22:50, the Defendant, on the road of the Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City “C hotel,” went to the 35 “Seo River University” (hereinafter “Seo River University”), a destination, after having taken the taxi as a customer, demanded payment of KRW 3,500 of the taxi fee to D under the influence of alcohol without any justifiable reason. G and H, a police officer belonging to the F Zone of the Seoul Mapo-gu Police Station, dispatched upon receipt of a 112 report, called that he would not take the Defendant’s desire. On the part of the victim H, “this dog, dead and discarded,” Chewing typtyp, who is a police officer, who will take the place, who will scar, and who will take the scar, who will take the scar, who will scar, and who will take the scar scar, and publicly insult the victim’s jobs, such as D, etc.

2. The Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties by assaulting the police officer on the ground floor, such as the defect that the police officer attempted to arrest the Defendant as an offender in the crime of insult, the Defendant’s wallets et al., and the Defendant’s left hand and blue blue bluor, thereby obstructing the police officer’s 112 handling of reporting duties and lawful performance of duties concerning the arrest of flagrant offenders.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. Each police statement made to D and H;

1. The defendant asserts that he was in a state of mental or physical disability at the time of committing the instant crime. According to the record of the police interrogation protocol against the defendant, it is recognized that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, but it does not seem that the defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions. Thus, the above argument is rejected). The application of the law is without merit.

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 136 (1) and 311 of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of criminal facts;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act, and Article 50 of the same Act.