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

At around 23:40 on January 7, 2014, the Defendant: (a) in the front corridor of the Defendant’s wife D’s wife located in Macheon-si B, 313 Dong 1503 (C apartment); (b) was found to D at the time of divorce and reported that the Defendant was suffering from disturbance; (c) the Defendant, a police officer belonging to the Gyeonggi-do Police Station E District Unit, called the Defendant, attempted to listen to the circumstances of the instant case while leaving the Defendant; and (d) expressed to F, “F, ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??

이로 인해 피고인은 공무집행방해죄의 현행범인으로 체포되었고, 위 F와 함께 출동한 같은 지구대 소속 경찰관 G이 피고인을 아파트 엘리베이터에 태우려 하자 피고인은 발로 F의 오른쪽 다리와 G의 왼쪽 허벅지를 각각 1회씩 찼다.

Ultimately, the Defendant assaulted police officers as above and obstructed their legitimate execution of duties concerning criminal investigations and maintenance of public order.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of the accused in the first protocol of trial;

1. Statement of each police statement related to F and G;

1. Application of statutes on photographs of damage;

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

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Code of the Suspension of Execution [Determination of Punishment] - Where the degree of violence, threat, and deceptive scheme is minor, the element of aggravation of the obstruction of performance of official duties - Where there are many public officials who have suffered damage: [the scope of recommendation area] basic area [the scope of recommendation area] [the decision of sentence] from June to April [the decision of sentence] from June to April [the decision of sentence] in addition to the sentencing factors in one year prior to the suspension of execution, the defendant tried the police officer to take the action against the defendant, and the police officer tried to take the action against the defendant, and the defendant was committed against the mistake while the defendant was committed in all of the crimes in this case.