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

On July 11, 2019, at around 18:45, the Defendant was demanded to stop the above taxi from the police officer affiliated with D of the Busan Casa Police Station D, where the traffic was controlled at the end at the time, while driving the private taxi at the intersection of the Seocho-gu Busan, Busan, which is located in 157, to the left at the center of the main line from “C” to the main line from “C” to the main line.

Therefore, the Defendant, as seen above, should be subject to traffic offense, refers to a pole that connects the body of a cab with the roof of the cab while making a request for stopping on the left hand to avoid such traffic offense, while driving the cab toward the above cab while driving the cab as it is, and connects the cab with the body of the cab.

Although the part was prevented from running the taxi, E was forced to go beyond the floor.

As a result, the Defendant assaulted E who is a public official in charge of traffic offense by using a taxi, which is a dangerous object, and caused the injury of E, which requires treatment for approximately two weeks.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness F and E;

1. A written diagnosis of injury to E produced by a doctor G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (report on attachment of black stay images);

1. Articles 144 (2) (main sentence) and (1), and 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 53 or 55 (1) 3 of the Discretionary Mitigation and Mitigation Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances shall be considered among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Act on Suspension of Execution (The following consideration shall be repeated for the reason for sentencing):

1. Determination of the defendant and defense counsel's assertion under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act

1. The summary of the argument is that the Defendant did not have any intent to obstruct the execution of official duties by using a taxi and thereby did not have any intent to obstruct the execution of official duties. Therefore, there was no intention to commit the crime of causing

2. Determination

A. The relevant legal doctrine is based on the obstruction of performance of official duties.