공무집행방해
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.
However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.
Punishment of the crime
On January 23, 2018, the Defendant assaulted “D” penta, which is located in C in Samgam-si, 02:30 on March 23, 2018.
“A” means the victim F (44 Does) and G, a police box affiliated with the Twit-Sa Police Station E-Saba that was dispatched upon the report of 112, while there is a victim F (44 Does) and G.
Baba Babro
The term "bark sark", and the police wark wark war
Chewing Chewing ark, etc., intending to leave the site by doing so, and leaving the site, and to escape from the Defendant’s self-harm, and to escape from the Defendant’s self-harm, the Chewing arb, regardless of whether the Defendant’s self-harm is dead or not, arbitson’s superior.
If there is any error in the inside "the victim intending to wear a lock to prevent additional harm by keeping the disturbance, such as shacking the victim with sound, blueing him/her, and shouldering the glass in a ward, etc.," the victim was unable to wear the lock and blue the victim, and the victim was unable to do so.
Sheb far far and head far was expressed as the head of the defendant's face in the process of making the victim gambling on the wall of the ward.
As a result, the defendant interfered with police officers' legitimate execution of duty on 112 reporting by assault and intimidation.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Each legal statement of witness F and G, witness H and I respectively;
1. 112 Reported case processing table, and voice files reported to 112 reported;
1. Application of statutes on site photographs;
1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;
1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (including the absence of criminal records exceeding fines)
1. The Defendant’s summary of the assertion was passively resisting against police officers’ excessive suppression, and there was no intention of assault, and it is unlawful for police officers to perform their official duties, such as not notifying police officers of the doctrine. Thus, it does not constitute interference with the performance of official duties.
2. Determination
A. The following facts are revealed based on the facts admitted.