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

(e).

At around 05:40 on November 10, 2019, the Defendant: (a) was fighting in front of the above convenience store; (b) was 5 people due to the instant assault case; (c) was called “request for emergency mobilization”; and (d) was dispatched by C, a police officer belonging to the Seoul Gwanak Police Station B District, who confirmed the on-site situation and heard statements about the details of the report; and (d) was prevented the Defendant from attempting to go to the victims, and (e) was pushed by his hand.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties of police officers regarding the handling of 112 reported cases, protection of people's lives, bodies, and property, prevention, suppression, investigation, etc. of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the draft D;

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

1. The act of assaulting police officers who perform official duties in sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act requires strict punishment for crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties which harm legitimate exercise of public authority.

However, other circumstances such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, etc., including the fact that the defendant's mistake is against himself/herself, and the degree of used violence cannot be seen as serious, shall be determined as the sentence as ordered by considering the following circumstances.

Public Prosecution Rejection Parts

1. On November 10, 2019, at F convenience store located in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City around 05:40 on the charge, the Defendant heard the victim’s words “firstly calculated” from the victims while having a dispute over the issue of convenience store employees and the purchase price of the goods, and argued with the victims, the Defendant saw the fat of the victim’s H(24 years of age) by hand, kiddd the spath, kidd the spath, spad the spath of the victim’s I(27 years of age), followed the victim’s spath of the bridge, fatd the fat with hand, and pushed the fat.