A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On February 11, 2014, at around 00:20, the Defendant received a report from G police officers belonging to the F Zone of the Gwangju Northern Police Station, who called "F Zone of the Gwangju Northern Police Station" and called out for a disturbance on the ground that he did not appear in the mind of the safe owners while drinking the wife and alcohol in the "E" of the D Operation in Gwangju Northern District.

Accordingly, the Defendant, on the ground that the Defendant was unreshed, she was hicked to the police officer on the ground that she was ‘A’, she was hicked to the instant police officer on the ground that she was frighten, and she was hicked to the large fright, and she was shicked with her body by drinking the chest of the said police officer on a one-time basis.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the accused;

1. Statement made by the police officer in G; and

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of D;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 136 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. The defense counsel's assertion of the defense counsel under Article 35 of the Criminal Code among repeated crimes is merely a defense counsel for the defendant's assertion that the police officer's arrest of the defendant who did not meet the requirements as a lawful flagrant offender, and the defendant's such act constitutes a justifiable act that occurred in the course of resistance against illegal arrest. However, according to the evidence duly adopted by the court and the investigation completed, the defendant was found to have been sent to the scene of this case by the police officer G upon receiving the 112 report and sent to the site of this case without any reason and expressed that "the defendant who talks about a disturbance, talks about it, and talks about it." Thus, the defendant's act of disturbance was stated that "the defendant who did not meet the requirements as a legitimate flagrant offender," and without any justifiable reason, the defendant's attacked the shoulder of the police officer G and added his chest to the chest.