1. Around 02:00 on October 8, 2017, the Defendant assaulted the victim D (48 years) who was a substitute engineer driving the Defendant’s vehicle at the underground parking lot of the building C in Sungsung-si, without any reason, once drinking by drinking.

2. On October 8, 2017, the Defendant who interfered with the performance of official duties was arrested in F District E around 02:40 on the F District, and was arrested in the act of assault as stated in paragraph 1, and then in the said District, wanting to look at the police officers who were in the said District.

“Along with the desire of the Defendant’s view, he heard the words that the Defendant would not take a bath from the police officer G of the foregoing F District Station G, who had been able to protect the Defendant from that point of view, followed the said G by slurbing the slur that the Defendant reported, and assaulted twice the faces of the said G on the face of the said G.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the prevention, suppression and investigation of police officers' crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness D and G;

1. The legal statement of the witness H in part;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Investigation reports obstructing the execution of violence and official duties;

1. Photographs;

1. Photographss and photographs (fracks of CCTVs);

1. Data concerning the investigation report (as to the CCTV time error in the C building, the CCTV time error) and photographic data comparing time;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the police officer's mobilization of the defendant in the act of assaulting the victim's speech without assaulting the victim's D constitutes an illegal arrest. The act of resisting such arrest does not constitute a crime of interference with the execution of official duties as a legitimate defense, and the defendant's act of throwing the sloter at the bar or spiting the spiter, but the defendant did not go against the police officer, and therefore, the charges of this case are all acquitted.

However, in light of the following circumstances admitted according to each evidence of the judgment, the defendant saw the victim D's back to drink once.