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

On August 25, 2019, the Defendant: (a) on the front side of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, on August 21:40, 2019, the Defendant: (b) asked the police officer to question “whether he wishes to go to a reporter”; (c) the police officer, who was called the 112-reported taxi engineer and the 112-reported taxi engineer, appears to be in the presence of the reporter; and (d) the police officer, who was called the b) the b) the b) the b) the c (i) the c) the c (i) the c) the c) the c) the c) the c (i) the c) the c) the c) the c) the c) the c) the c) the c) the c) the c) the c

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Written statements of D;

1. E statements;

1. Investigation reports (shot photographs of damaged parts), - Application of photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

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

1. Crimes of violence committed against police officers in the course of performing official duties on the justifiable grounds of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, and the defendant's liability for such crimes is not somewhat weak.

The defendant has been punished several times due to past violent crimes, and has been sentenced to a fine for obstruction of performance of official duties.

However, considering the fact that the degree of exercise of force is not much important, the fact that the defendant's mistake is recognized, the punishment shall be determined in consideration of all the sentencing conditions prescribed by Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as family relationship of the defendant, motive and circumstance of the crime, etc., and the attendance of violent therapy and community service shall be also ordered to prevent