A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On May 6, 2016, at around 06:50, the Defendant: (a) committed assaulting a police officer’s back-to-face line in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City “D”; and (b) obstructed the police officer’s criminal prevention and investigation; (c) public peace and order and maintenance on the ground that the police officer F, who was a police officer of the Seoul Mine-gu Police Station E District Team, sent out after receiving 112 a report, controlled the Defendant, who was working for the foregoing drinking house, and demanded the Defendant to return home, the Defendant’s Nexta of the said police officer on his hand; and (d) obstructed the police officer’s lawful performance of duties concerning the police officer’s crime prevention and investigation; and (e) public peace and order.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of the law of the police statement protocol to F;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code of the Social Service Order

1. The alleged defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the punishment should be mitigated pursuant to Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act, since the defendant was in a state of mental and physical weakness due to drinking at the time of the crime in this case.

2. According to the records, the fact that the defendant was in a state of drinking alcohol at the time of the crime of this case is recognized.

However, in light of the background leading to the instant crime, method and time of the crime, the time of the crime, the situation before and after the crime, etc., such as the fact that the Defendant clearly perceived that he was a police officer and obstructed the performance of official duties for a considerable period of time, and that there was clear perception of the situation unfavorable to the Defendant, such as refusing to state his personal information when he was arrested as an offender in the act of committing the crime of this case, etc., it is not deemed that the Defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is accepted.