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

Punishment of the crime

1. On January 8, 2016, the Defendant assaulted the victim on the ground that: (a) the victim was taking a taxi for business use operated by the victim C (5 years) in the vicinity of the Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B Station; (b) the victim was forced to leave the taxi on the front of Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City for the purpose of getting the taxi at around 04:25 on the same day; and (c) the victim was prevented from paying a taxi fee without any justifiable reason after having arrived at the taxi on the front of Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City for the purpose of getting the taxi on the same day; and (d) the victim was frighted by hand

2. On January 8, 2016, at around 04:50, the Defendant obstructed the police officer’s 112 report processing and lawful execution of duties concerning the arrest of flagrant offenders by assaulting G police officers, who were called out after having received 112 reports in front of Gwangjin-gu Seoul, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul, to arrest the Defendant as a current offender of the crime of assault, resisting the police officer’s 112 report processing and arrest of flagrant offenders.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Statement of the police statement related to C and G;

1. A taxi receipt;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (a wooden telephone statement);

1. Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of violence) and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties) of the relevant Act;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion on the charge of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes, the Defendant asserted that he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime, and that he was in the state of loss of confidence or mental or physical weakness. However, in light of the details and details of the crime in this case, the Defendant’s act before and after committing the crime, etc., even though it is found that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, it was found that he had

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Therefore, the above argument is not accepted.

Scope of recommended sentencing based on sentencing guidelines: Imprisonment with prison labor for up to one year and nine months, which interferes with the performance of official duties (Interference with the performance of official duties).