beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of five 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.
Reasons
Criminal facts
On June 29, 2017, at around 08:00, the Defendant was urged to return home from the slope E belonging to the Yangsan Police Station Diplomatic Station, which was dispatched to the site after receiving a report from 112 that a drunk person was diving in India, around 08:0 on June 29, 2017.
Sticker shackers
“Abruting”, and assaulting a police officer’s clothes wearing the above E, on one occasion, of the left side and the left side of the said E, with the face and chest of the E continues to be sealed, and the above E’s right side bridge is cut, and the police officer’s clothes wearing the E are teared.
Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of the reported case by the police officer.
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement by the defendant in court;
1. Statement made by the police for E;
1. A photograph of damaged police officers and a list of reported cases handled by 112;
1. Application of the Act and subordinate statutes to report investigation (the CCTV images recorded at the time of committing the instant crime);
1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;
1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (a) of the suspended sentence (a type of decision) is [the reason for sentencing] of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, and the basic area [the scope of the recommended sentence] [the scope of the recommendation] six months to one year and six months] - Whether the suspended sentence is suspended or not] - The reason for general consideration is not less than two times adversely: the circumstance and degree of interference with the execution of official duties (the decision of the sentence] as well as the fact that the defendant had been sentenced two times to imprisonment due to the crime of violence before the instant case and one fine, respectively.