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

On November 18, 2016, the Defendant reported on November 18, 2016, around 15:48, 794-1, that the Defendant was faced by the Defendant in front of the exit from Daejeon-dong Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-dong Police Station C District District, and confirmed the Defendant’s identity, and notified the Defendant of the unpaid fine, and the Defendant’s failure to pay the fine was discovered and notified to the police officer of the Daejeon-dong Police Station C District, who called the scene at the site once.

As a result, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of 112 reports by police officers and arrest of inmates.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to D or E;

1. A letter of arrest of a flagrant offender (No. 30/100 of the investigation records);

1. A copy of the work log;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs damaged;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

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

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Act (in order to prevent recidivism) lies in the defendant committed the instant crime; the defendant appears to have committed the instant crime in a unanimous state; the defendant's health condition is not good; the defendant's basic living beneficiaries are not in economic situation; in light of the circumstances favorable to the defendant, there are many criminal records and criminal records resulting from violence-related criminal records and obstruction of the performance of official duties; the assault of police officers who perform legitimate official duties in a uniform would hinder the exercise of legitimate public authority that should be strictly executed; and the attitude of the relevant crime is weak and the crime is also deemed not suitable;

Therefore, the criminal liability is heavy.

It can be seen, the defendant did not agree with the damaged police officers, and the defendant interfered with the execution of official duties.