A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On July 17, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to ten months of imprisonment with prison labor for the purpose of the fire prevention of the present main building in the Gwangju District Court's netcheon Branch on July 17, 2014, and completed the execution of the sentence on May 8, 2015.

1. On May 19, 2015, the Defendant acquired Handphones (S5 in Samsung Ggalthal ju) equivalent to 800,000 won at the market price owned by the victim E, which is the victim’s ownership in front of the Dgallon located in C at a leisure time, on May 19, 2015.

Defendant 1 did not take necessary procedures such as returning the above acquired property to the victim, but did so.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the property that has been separated from the possession of the victim.

2. The Defendant does not return an insulting Handphone which was lost before G pharmacy located in F at around 10:30 on May 20, 2015.

“The victim’s slope I who is a police officer of the H police box called the Defendant upon receipt of a report and requested a return of the Handphone acquired by the Defendant, and the victim’s guards sent the victim openly insultd the victims by openly talking the victims with a large voice “as a bit of a bit of bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a

3. The Defendant, at around 11:00 on May 20, 2015, was arrested and detained in a flagrant offender with the same suspicion as described in paragraphs 1 and 2 within the police box located in K, and was under investigation, at around 11:0 on May 20, 2015, at the police station, who was in charge of the instant case and was in charge of the arrest of a flagrant offender, at the same time as described in paragraphs 1 and 2, shall look at the police officer, who is in charge of the instant case (48 years), and shall be killed at the time of the death of the police officer, from the following to the death of the police officer.

“In the end, it was threatened.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the investigation of the police officer.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to E, I, and J;

1. A written statement of I;

1. Each investigation report (on-site conditions, suspect's words and photographs attached);

1. A previous conviction in judgment: