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 June 6, 2018, the Defendant, “E convenience store” located in D at the time of influence on June 6, 2018, was urged to return home from G police box affiliated with G police officer of the Steering Police Station, who was dispatched after receiving a report from 112.

J. The meaning “a Chewing” refers to as “a belbow,” and assaulted at one time the face part of G on the part of the belbow with the arms attached.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of 112 reports by police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning investigation reports;

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Circumstances unfavorable to the reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, such as the observation of protection and the order to provide community service and attend lectures: Many criminal records related to violence, and the use of violence to police officers performing official duties, etc., which are inferior to the nature of such crime;

(k) favorable circumstances: The fact that the instant crime was committed by force by force, and the police officer who suffered damage did not suffer from serious injury in the process;

In this regard, the punishment of the victimized police officer is not possible. Other factors such as the age, sex, intelligence and environment of the accused, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., such as the sentencing factors stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 51 of the Criminal Act.