A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On October 18, 2015, the Defendant: (a) reported that D Company was under the influence of alcohol in front of “D Company” located in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, and received a report from 112, and recommended that D Company enter the said “D Company” to return home; (b) on the ground that the sloping F belonging to the Daegu-gu, East East Police Station E-gu, Seoul-dong, which called the Defendant recommended the Defendant to return home.

G. He saw that he was able to see. He was able to do so, she was flick, she was flick, she was flick, and she was flick to the left chest part of F, and obstructed police officers’ legitimate execution of duties in relation to the prevention, suppression, and investigation of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the police suspect interrogation protocol against the accused;

1. Statement made to F in the police statement protocol;

1. Attachment of a copy of a certificate issued by a public official of a victimized police officer, attachment of a copy of a work log for a victimized police officer, and application of each statute stated in the statement

1. Relevant Article 136 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. The Defendant’s defense counsel on the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended sentence (see, e.g., favorable sentencing conditions among the grounds for sentencing) and Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, asserts to the effect that the Defendant was in a mental and physical state due to cerebr

According to the records of this case, the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime of this case, and was diagnosed by the "Interference with the use of climatic brain and alcohol," etc. However, in light of the details and contents of the crime of this case, and the defendant's behavior before and after the crime of this case, the defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the crime of this case.

It is not visible.

Therefore, defense counsel's assertion is without merit.

The reason for sentencing [the scope of the statutory penalty] One to five years [the types of decisions] that interfere with the execution of official duties. The reason for sentencing is one type (the obstruction of the execution of official duties/the coercion of official duties).