The defendant was a person who visited the office of Pyeongtaek-do in order to sell goods and who committed an act to interfere with his / her failure to sell goods.

On September 12, 2016, the Defendant visited the victim E (35 years) who is a police assigned for special guard belonging to the Do government office at the entrance of the 455 North Do government office, as the Do government office of the Do government office of the 455 North Do government office.

F has served as an answer to the question.

When intending to enter the Do government, the victim took the Do government , and the victim took the Do government , thereby putting the Do government , spiting the victim's bath, spiting the victim's face on the face of the victim, spiting the victim's face twice in drinking, sprinking the victim's face on the part of the Do government nasp, and sping the victim's left hand on the part of the victim's left hand as soon as possible, and inflicted an injury on the victim, such as the left kin, which requires approximately two weeks of treatment.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning office security guards, and at the same time injured the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and G;

1. Each police statement protocol with respect to E and G;

1. Work log, a copy of the examination certificate, and a medical certificate;

1. Provisions on the service of police assigned for the ordinary North Korean guard [the defendant did not assault E as stated in the facts charged, and it was difficult to understand whether E is a police assigned for special guard because E does not have uniformed, and E does not constitute legitimate performance of official duties;

The argument is asserted.

However, it is believed that the evidence, such as a medical certificate, consistent and consistent in specific and important areas, can be trusted in accordance with the objective excessive requirements

According to the above evidence, including E and G investigative agencies, legal statements and the service regulations of police officers assigned for police on the border line, the defendant was found to have inflicted an injury by assaulting E as stated in the facts charged. At the time, E are wearing the uniform of police officers assigned for special guard at the time, and the defendant could have known that E is a police officer assigned for special guard at the time.