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

At around 01:20 on April 11, 2014, the Defendant: (a) was under the investigation of the developments leading up to the assault case from the Hanju Police Station F District Head G, Assistant H, Assistant I, and Assistant J, the Defendant refused voluntary accompanying to the F District Office “I would have no crime; (b) the Defendant refused voluntary accompanying; and (c) the Defendant was under the examination of the Defendant’s chest’s chest to arrest the Defendant as a flagrant offender, such as a 2 to 3 trillion won her head, her head slope flick, her head flick, her head flick by hand; and (d) the circumstances leading up to the arrest of the Defendant’s chest to 2 to 3 her head flick; and (e) the Defendant continued to arrest the Defendant with the her head flick by her hand; and (e) the circumstances leading up to the arrest of the Defendant’s flick to 1 to 3 her head flick.

Accordingly, the defendant, who escaped by G, attempted to arrest the defendant in front of the same cafeteria located in K, which is located far away from approximately 150 meters away from the above E-Age parking lot before the above E-Age Club, and the defendant committed assault, such as: (a) the defendant, while resisting the body of G in the course of a port of resistance; (b) the defendant, at his hand, was pushed down with the sloping H's right side; and (c) the slope H's upper part was sealed by water.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers on the arrest of flagrant offenders.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of M;

1. Application of each statute on the statement of the police to H, I, J, G, and N;

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

1. Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505 Decided June 25, 2009