A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. On March 19, 2017, the Defendant committed assault, such as: (a) 19:40, around the 19:40-way 2, the Defendant: (b) took a cell phone of the victim C (14 years old); (c) was aware of the victim’s mobile phone; (d) was shotbucks of the victim’s driver; (c) was fuckbucks; (d) was fucks of the victim’s bucks; and (e) was fucks of the son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son

2. The Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties, immediately after committing the crime of paragraph 1, committed assault by the Defendant: (a) the Seoul Mapo-ro Seoul Mapo-ro Red Twit-ro Office 160 2; (b) “A person who assaultss students under the influence of alcohol” was arrested as a flagrant offender under the slope E belonging to the Seoul Mapo-gu Police Station D District Unit E, which was dispatched to the site after receiving a report 112; and (c) was on patroled to the said district, and was traveling to the said district, such as frightd against the arrested one, and frighting the face of the said E under the said E, and frighting the shoulder by hand.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the maintenance of police officers' order and crime control.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of each police statement protocol to C and E;

1. Relevant Article 136 of the Criminal Act, Articles 136 and 260 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment for the crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. According to the records on the assertion by the defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution, it is recognized that the Defendant was in a drunken state at the time of the instant crime, but in full view of the background, process, means and method of the instant crime, and the Defendant’s speech and behavior before and after the instant crime, it was thereby in a state that the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions.