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

On August 13, 2013, at around 23:45, the Defendant: (a) requested the police officer F in charge of the E box called up after receiving a report on the reason that the taxi was returned to Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D on the ground that he was not paid a charge; (b) requested him to verify the black box of the taxi; (c) but on the ground that he returned to the police officer, it cannot be confirmed that he paid the taxi fee and demanded him to return to the said police officer; (d) caused him to pay the taxi fee, and (e) caused him to wear down the right shoulder of F in the course when he was going to board the patrol, and (e) obstructed the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties concerning the police officer’s patrol duty by assaulting G while taking a bath to G who was in his hand.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the witness F and G (a witness F and G consistently make a statement consistent with the facts constituting an offense in the principal case; and a partial change in the contents of the statement appears only to be a natural phenomenon following the passage of time. Moreover, there is no special reason for the said witness, who is a police officer, to make a false statement.)

1. The application of the law to the upper part of the photograph (which clearly confirms the occurrence of the upper part of the F's right shoulder, there is no evidence to prove that there was no other circumstance that the above photograph was fabricated, or that F was at the time there was a different situation that the above upper part was embling.).

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

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. The defendant and his defense counsel regarding the assertion of the defendant under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act and the defense counsel. At the time of the crime of this case, the arrest of the defendant was lacking in the notification procedures such as the necessity of arrest and the reason for arrest, etc., and the execution of duties by the police officers