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 03:25 on May 11, 2014, the Defendant, at the entrance of the Defendant’s dwelling entrance at Tong Young-si B apartment 101 Dong 908, the Defendant reported that he want to get out of the apartment under the influence of alcohol, and assaulted the Defendant, a police officer belonging to the Gyeongnam-gu Police Station C district of the Gyeongnam-gu Police Station, Gyeongnam-gu, Seoul, by “the bitch son, bitom, bitomb, bitom,” with the left hand of “the bit son, bitom, bitom, bitom,” and bomb, with the hand hand of the foregoing D’s son’s bitbuck, and bombed from E, a police officer belonging to the same global belt, to see it by hand.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers on crime prevention and maintenance of order.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to D and E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime concerned;

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

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Suspension of execution under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (including the fact that there is no previous conviction other than the fine to the accused, and the accused has committed any contingent crime after drinking alcohol and his/her mistake is divided);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Code of the Social Service Order and Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc. [Scope of Recommendation] There is no basic area (6 months to 1 year and 4 months) of the obstruction of performance of official duties (the scope of recommendation] / [decision of sentence] / The decision of sentence shall be criticized that the police officer, who called for a defendant to drink drinking alcohol, has obstructed the legitimate performance of official duties by exercising assault against the police officer who called for a rioter to drink drinking alcohol. However, the defendant does not have any criminal record other than fine, other criminal records other than fine, has committed drinking alcohol and has committed contingent crimes, and the defendant's age, character and behavior, motive for the environmental crime, circumstances after the crime, etc.