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

[Basic Facts] The defendant is a member of the Chang Chang-gun residing in Gangwon-gun C, and the victim D (n, 44 years old) is a public official in charge of the operation of the Cheong Chang-gun and the competition support.

The defendant filed a civil petition by telephone with the office of Pyeongtaek-gun in order to resist the ground below his residence, due to the E construction work going around the above residence, and the injured party visited the defendant's residence to resolve the civil petition as a person in charge of the above construction work.

[2] On August 19, 2017, at around 10:30 on August 19, 2017, the Defendant demanded that the construction should be immediately discontinued to the victim who was found in order to resolve the above civil petition, and the victim’s article quality is transferred to the victim. The Defendant did not accept the victim’s demand, and the Defendant saw the victim’s hand into the victim’s left hand at the time when she spacks the victim’s right-hand hand, and spacks the victim’s head-hand hand at approximately 4:5 meters high from the victim’s right-hand hand, and led the victim’s head-on hand at one time the victim’s left-hand spack with the victim’s hand.

As a result, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by public officials on civil petition resolution by force, and at the same time, the victim requires treatment for about 14 days, and the joints of the two bucks.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D and F;

1. A written diagnosis of injury by a complainant, a complainant, and a photograph of the E Corporation site;

1. A copy of the public official evidence [the defendant and his defense counsel argued to the effect that the act of D at the time of the instant case did not constitute a crime of interference with the performance of official duties because it was not a legitimate official duty, and thus, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, i.e., the public official of the Pyeongtaek-gun Office, as a public official in charge of E