A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is between the victim C (ma, 50 years of age) and the married couple.

1. Injury;

A. On July 26, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around 18:00, at the “singing room” operated by the victim located in Sungnam-si; (b) obstructed the victim by hand without any particular reason; and (c) obstructed the victim’s face face by drinking and singing the victim; and (d) inflicted injury on the victim, i.e., taking the victim’s face into account by drinking and singing the victim’s face.

B. On March 1, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 04:00, around 04:00, at the first floor F1st of Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu; (b) the Defendant: (c) left away from the family and did not return to the house by leaving the family, who was adopted by the Defendant; (d) was responsible for the victim; and (e) opened the victim’s face by hand; and (e) was inflicted an injury on the Defendant, such as the first blood transfusion, etc. in which the number of days of treatment cannot be known, due to drinking and bal

2. On June 1, 2015, the Defendant violated the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (collective assaulting with a deadly weapon, etc.) said, around 02:15, at the “Esing room” operated by the victim located in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, the Defendant told the victim to the effect that “whether or not the victim has the wind or not” the victim has the wind, and told the victim “whether or not the victim has the wind.” On the hand, the Defendant saw the victim’s face on several occasions with the hand floor of the victim, and assaulted the victim two times on two parts of the part of the victim, which is a deadly weapon at the singer.

3. On June 1, 2015, at around 02:15, the Defendant, at the “Esing room” operated by the victim located in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu, 2015, the Defendant: (a) considered that the police officer, who was a police officer of the Sungnam-gu Police Station, sent to the site after receiving 112 reports due to the assault described in paragraph (2), would remove the Defendant and C; and (b) considered that “I would only remove the Defendant, i.e., a police officer of the Sungnam-gu Police Station, who was called to the site after receiving 112 reports due to the assault described in paragraph (2).”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning 112 report handling.

Summary of Evidence

1...