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

On March 27, 2017, the Defendant 00:20 on March 27, 2017, at the front of a police box in Pyeongtaek-si B, and “A guest who has boarded a taxi is frighting.”

“ . . . .. .. .. .. .. ... ... ... ... ... to the C box sent upon receipt of a report from the chief of the police box affiliated with C box, and upon receipt of a recommendation

Whether there are different officials or not;

“To take a bath with the words “,” etc., and to walk the face of the said D once, and to display the D’s drinking towards the said D.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the prevention, suppression and investigation of police officers' crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes by cutting off a damaged photograph of D or a photograph taken by a police officer in mobilization;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. To observe the protection and observation, and to understand the reasons for sentencing Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, the police officers exercised violence, and the degree of used violence is not easy.

Although it has long been long, the defendant has been sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment due to interference with the execution of official duties.

Although severe punishment is required, the sentence of imprisonment is not imposed on the defendant in consideration of the circumstances such as the fact that the defendant is divided into crimes, contingent crimes, and the economic situation of the defendant is not good.