A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On August 22, 2018, the Defendant, at the point of “C” located in the North west-gun B of North Korea on August 22, 2018, at the point of “C” located in the North west-gun B, and upon receiving a report from the host Party, the police box belonging to the head of the Suwon Police Station D police station called out after hearing the statements of the persons concerned and soliciting the Defendant to return home, “Woos grow up.”

“In large sounds, she took a bath, followed the left part of E in the course of the shooting, and assaulted, such as flabing the bat, etc. by cutting the bat.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on the prevention and suppression of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Photographs of the criminal scene;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (Investigation of witnesses F);

1. Relevant Article 136 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da1248, Apr. 1,

1. Scope of punishment by law: Not more than five years of imprisonment;

2. Application of the sentencing criteria [Type Determination] Obstructing the performance of public duties in the course of interfering with the performance of public duties, the Class 1 (Interference with and Force of Performance of Public Duties) [Special Sentencing Person] Reduction element: Reduction element of punishment: Non- [Determination in the sphere of recommendation] Reduction Area of Punishment [Scope of Recommendation] Reduction Area], one month to eight months.

3. The crime of this case by which the sentence of sentence was rendered is not clear that the defendant used violence against a police officer who is performing legitimate official duties, and the criminal liability of the defendant is heavier, and that the defendant has been punished once due to the crime of violence is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the fact that the defendant recognized his criminal act and reflected, the defendant did not have any specific criminal record except for the punishment of a fine in 1993, the degree of violence exercised by the defendant is very important, and the defendant's agreement with the damaged police officer does not want the punishment of the defendant is taken into consideration in favor of the defendant, and other cases.