A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. On September 19, 2017, the Defendant: (a) committed assault to the victim, who was an employee of the victim E (V), who was spiting the Defendant, on the floor of the D cafeteria located in Sacheon-si, Sacheon-si; (b) once he/she spits the Defendant on the floor of the 63-year-old restaurant; and (c) committed assault to the victim.

2. The Defendant, at the time and place specified in paragraph (1), assaulted the said victim E at the same time and place, did not participate in the e, and did not look at the e, while there are customers in the said place.

(h) Myar Domins;

(a) Age and age;

(h) The victim F (the 44 years old), who is the principal restaurant, openly insults the victim by concluding that two means, “I am Chewing, I am h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h, and continue to be h h h h h h.

Chewing joints of brickworkss.

Chewing . Chewing ...

(a) publicly expressed the desire to “the same year” and publicly expressed the victim F.

3. The Defendant interfered with the duties of the Defendant: (a) expressed the victims of the time, place, 1, and 2 as stated in paragraph 1; and (b) spits, spits, etc. spits, spits, etc. on the floor of the restaurant, which were taking meals on the restaurant, did not provide meals to the customers outside the restaurant; and (b) by force interfered with the victim F restaurant business operation by force.

4. On September 19, 2017, the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties at the place of the foregoing paragraph (1) around 14:43 on September 19, 2017, and on the ground that police officers belonging to the Sacheon Police Station G District G District, who called out after receiving a report on the assault as described in paragraph (1) 1, take a bath to ask victims about the circumstances of the instant case, and that the police officers belonging to the said district would restrain the victims from entering the scene. Accordingly, the Defendant took one time at one time at the right shoulder of the said I.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on 112 reporting processing affairs.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

1. On-site photographs;

1. Application of video Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Articles of the Act concerning the facts constituting the crime;