[Defendant A] The Defendant is not guilty (Defendant B). The Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that this judgment.

Punishment of the crime

- Defendant B

1. On October 27, 2014, at around 23:20, the Defendant: (a) was in front of the E-Road located in Gwangju Mine District D1; (b) was in front of the victim F (n, 42 years old); and (c) was in front of the Plaintiff’s friendly A, who was in front of the 112, and was in front of the 112, and was in front of the 112, the Defendant obstructed the Defendant’s legitimate execution of duties concerning police officers’ criminal investigation and maintenance of public order.

2. The Defendant, at the same time and place, and at the same time and place, the said victim F expressed the Defendant’s desire and resisting, and assaulted the victim by putting the victim over the floor by hand.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Legal statement of a witness I;

1. Application of the police statement law to H

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime;

1. Imprisonment with prison labor for choice of punishment;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act (within the scope of adding up long-term punishments);

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order;

1. Scope of recommendations according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) Type I (Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties) of the Act on the Performance of Official Duties, the basic area (6 to April 1);

(b) Type 1 (General Violence) and the basic area (two to ten months);

(c) The scope of final sentence due to the aggravation of multiple offenses: From six months to nine months;

2. Specific grounds for sentencing - reasonable grounds for sentencing: The defendant reflects the crime of this case; there is no record of punishment for obstruction of performance of official duties; there is no record of punishment exceeding fines; and the defendant is deemed to have caused the crime of this case by contingency. - The crime of obstruction of performance of official duties of this case is not likely to obstruct the execution of official duties by assaulting a police officer in the course of performing official duties by saving uniforms.