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

On October 5, 2013, the Defendant, under contact with Ma-gu B, who was suspected of obstruction of the performance of official duties, committed an act of assaulting the Defendant, such as visiting the said Cdistrict located in Ma-gu, 00:30 on October 5, 2013, and searching for the Ma-gu, and taking a bucking bath, keeping the Defendant in his hand, and obstructing the progress of the patrol vehicle to take over the said B to the police station, and neglecting the Defendant’s course of the patrol vehicle to take over the Defendant as a flagrant offender, and assaulting the F buckbucks that he tried to arrest the Defendant as a flagrant offender for about five seconds.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties of police officers in relation to the prevention, suppression, and investigation of crimes, and at the same time, the victim FF(the age of 31) needs to be treated for about two weeks.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol of partial police interrogation of the accused;

1. Each police statement of the F, E, and H;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a criminal investigation report (Evidence No. 47 pages);

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reasoning for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act is against the Defendant, the fact that there is no criminal record of obstruction of performance of official duties, and the fact that the nature of the crime is not weak by injuring the police officer. It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.