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

On November 16, 2019, at around 02:25, the Defendant: (a) committed assault, on the floor of hand, on the ground that he was a policeman D, who was in the front of a c patrol box located in Busan Jung-gu, on the ground that he was booming around the taxi, on the ground that he was a policeman of the said C patrol box, who was in the front of the c patrol box.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the traffic control of police officers and the prevention of traffic hazards.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of D;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (i.e., the grounds for the suspended sentence)

1. Where the sentencing criteria apply [Scope of recommending punishment] the category 1 (Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties and Compelling of Duties) in the mitigation area (one to eight months), (special mitigation persons), the degree of violence, intimidation, deceptive scheme, or obstruction of official duties is insignificant;

2. Sentencing together with the disposition, taking into account the fact that the defendant who was sentenced to the punishment has led to a confession of all the crimes and has a depth of his mistake, the degree of obstruction of performance of official duties is relatively minor, the defendant's age, criminal records (no record of criminal punishment except for punishment once by fine), etc.