A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Punishment of the crime

1. On May 28, 2015, at around 00:05, the Defendant obstructed the legitimate execution of duties of police officials by assaulting the Defendant, such as 112, while under the influence of alcohol, on the street in front of the Mat, Kim Jong-si, Kim Jong-si, the circumstances belonging to the D District Unit of the Police Station, which he was called for, and called for, the Defendant, thereby inducing him to return to the Defendant, and inducing him to return to the Defendant, and by doing so, “Ye, E, E, E, E, and the inside of this son, E, so as to listen to d., h., h., because h., h., h., h., h., h., h., the chest part of the said E’s chest, h., and E’s left hand hand, thereby interfering with the police officer’s inherent performance of duties relating to the protection of police officers’ entry and maintenance of order.

2. The Defendant damaged public goods at the same time, at the same time, and at the same place as the preceding paragraph, arrested a flagrant offender with the suspicion of interference with the performance of official duties, and embling the back door glass of the patrol vehicle into the elbow, and damaged 191,642 won, thereby impairing the utility of goods used by public offices.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the police officers of the accused;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on photographs and estimates;

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties), Article 141(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of damaging goods for public use) and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor;

1. The reasoning for sentencing under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes was sentenced to a suspended sentence for ten months at the Changwon District Court on April 10, 2015, and two months have not passed since the above judgment became final and conclusive at around that time, and thus, the sentence of this case was inevitable because the defendant committed the instant crime again. In addition, the sentence is determined as above by taking full account of all of the sentencing conditions set forth in the arguments, such as the defendant’s age, sex, family environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime.