A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On June 19, 2016, at around 20:58, the Defendant: (a) received a report from D’s 112, a staff member of the original police station E District; and (b) took a bath to her head, the Defendant took the f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’, which

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the prevention of police officers' crimes and the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to F and D;

1. Application of related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reasons for the sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on Probation and Order to Attend Education [Scope of Recommendation] that there is no basic area (6-1-4 months) of the obstruction of performance of official duties (6-1-4 months), [decision of sentence] 6 months of imprisonment, suspension of execution 2 years of probation, probation, and order to attend lectures to the restaurant employees without any particular reason under the influence of alcohol, and the Defendant used violence to the police officers dispatched after receiving a report. Thus, the nature of the crime is not good.

In addition, the defendant has already been punished six times for violent crimes.

Such circumstances and the defendant's age, occupation, character and conduct, the details of the crime and circumstances after the crime are committed shall be determined as per Disposition.