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

On October 21, 2015, at around 01:45, the Defendant interfered with the police officer’s legitimate execution of duties concerning handling of 112 reports and maintaining public order and handling of 112 reports, considering that the police officer’s slopeF, who was called up with the notification of domestic violence, intends to listen to the Defendant’s husband’s report to the Defendant’s husband. On October 21, 2015, at least 4-5 times.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of the police statement concerning F;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel first asserted that the police officer's field investigation of the married couple's and the domestic violence case in the room is not legitimate execution of duty.

In light of the following circumstances recognized by the above evidence, i.e., a slope F is too serious for the same time as the husband of the defendant, i.e., the assistant F was called up on the third floor. 401 and women have been sounded. This is not the first time. A similar report was received several times prior to the arrival, the defendant was waiting for the husband of the defendant at the time of arrival at the site of the case, and the fact that the assistant F was pushed up with the defendant's husband at the time of arrival at the site of the case, and the fact that the assistant F attempted to talk with the defendant in order to hear the situation of the defendant's continued arrival, the assistant F was called up on the site after receiving a report to 112 that he would have a couple fighting, and was called up on the site, and was investigated because it was necessary to hear the circumstances of the defendant's actions to his husband, which constitutes legitimate execution of official duties.

I would like to say.

In addition, the defendant and the defense counsel argued that there was no assault to the extent that the defendant did not interfere with the execution of official duties, but considering the above facts and the slope F, which is lawful execution of official duties, the defendant's act was taken into account.