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

Part of the facts charged in the indictment was revised according to the facts obtained through the examination of evidence without the amendment process to indictment to the extent that it does not disadvantage the defendant's defense right.

On January 1, 2019, at around 05:45, the Defendant: (a) stated in the indictment that the chest part of the Defendant was sealed in the indictment by hand, i.e., keeping the Defendant’s grandchildren from the scene in the process of investigating the background of the accident and whether to drive under the influence of alcohol, on the front of the 399 was sent to the Songpa-gu Seoul Olympic Games No. 5, the 112 report on the occurrence of the traffic accident; (b) on the ground that C of the Seoul Song Police Station B Police Station, dispatched to the scene by the 112 report on the occurrence of the traffic accident, he/she prevented the Defendant from departing from the scene in the course of investigating the circumstances of the accident and whether to drive under the influence of alcohol. However, according to the video taken at the time (Evidence No. 8-1 of the evidence list), etc. taken by the Defendant, the Defendant did not seem to have pushed the chest part of the police officer C’s chest part. As such, the

Violenced.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning the handling of 112 reports.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. E statements;

1. Determination as to the CD Defendant and defense counsel’s assertion

1. The gist of the argument is that the Defendant was fluoring the Defendant’s grandchildren of the police officer C, but the chest part was not closely involved, and the exercise of force by the Defendant does not constitute an assault to the extent that it obstructed the performance of duties by the police officer. Even if the Defendant’s act of assault was recognized, it constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate social rules and thus constitutes a legitimate act.

2. According to the evidence admitted as evidence prior to the judgment of conviction, it is recognized that the Defendant: (a) took part of the police officer C’s hand to restrain the Defendant from leaving the accident site of his female-friendly job offers D; and (b) assaulted the breast part; and (c) as such, the Defendant committed assault.