Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.

A. It can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant was arrested in the act of committing a crime by complying with the procedures stipulated in Article 200-5 of the Criminal Procedure Act, such as notifying the grounds and the appointment of defense counsel.

Contrary to this, L’s legal statement is difficult to believe as it is, and there is no reasonable doubt about the above recognition only with the images of evidence No. 1 (on-site CCTV images) submitted by the Defendant.

Therefore, all of the facts charged in the instant case can be found guilty, and the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion cannot be accepted on different premise.

The reason for sentencing [Scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines for the Supreme Court] 1 Crimes (Damage to Public Goods): The basic area (Interference with the performance of public duties) No. 1 Crimes (Interference with the performance of public duties in June or one year or six months): the basic area (Interference with the performance of public duties) No. 1 Crimes (Interference with the performance of public duties in June or one year or six months) of the basic area (Assault) No. 3 Crimes (Assaults: 6 months or one year or one year and six months): the aggravated area (referring to the same type of repeated crime, April or one year) of the aggravated area (referring to the same type of repeated crime), 6 months or two years or seven months: The final sentencing period according to the sentencing guidelines for multiple crimes is not set, so imprisonment with prison labor for at least one year according to the minimum limit of the punishment for the crimes under law, and in particular, several crimes such as obstruction of the performance of public duties and the execution of the public duties in several times.

Nevertheless, the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case again during the period of repeated crime due to violent crimes.

When refusing to measure drinking, the defendant spits or spits the face of the police officer, and after the arrest, the defendant broken off the glass of the patrol vehicle by walking it.

The crime of interference with the performance of official duties is a crime that is not good quality in that it makes it difficult to exercise the appropriate exercise of the public authority, which is the basis of the rule of law, and that the damage is returned to a good majority of citizens.

In this case.