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

On May 16, 2014, at around 13:01, the Defendant assaulted the police officer’s legitimate performance of official duties concerning the handling of 112 reports, on the ground that the police officer E (53 years of age) belonging to the D police box called up after having received 112 reports that he was used by the people, would break up at the house.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

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

1. Judgment on the defense counsel’s assertion under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. The defense counsel asserts to the effect that the defendant did not have any intent or awareness to obstruct the execution of official duties by assaulting the defendant while he was drunk and unfilled. Thus, the fact that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol is recognized, but the court duly adopted and investigated the evidence as follows: (i) the defendant was aware of the fact that he was a police officer at the time of the crime of this case; (ii) the police officer continuously recommended the defendant's home, and the police officer recommended the defendant's home, and (iii) the defendant did not have any intention or awareness to obstruct the execution of official duties at the time of the crime of this case; and (iv) the defendant did not have the ability to distinguish the things at the time of the crime of this case and make decisions on the means and methods of the crime of this case.

2. The defense counsel completed the duty of the above police officer's 112 report when the police officer called upon receiving a report moves the defendant to a safe place.