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

On July 21, 2018, at around 05:55, the Defendant, on the ground that he was faced with a police boat of the Yongsan-gu Seoul Yongsan Police Station B police station, which was reported at the 42-ro, Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, by 112, tried to open the police boat driver’s seat as a hand, and subsequently, was assaulted by a police boat of C, who was under the control of the police boat getting down from the above police boat, on the ground that he was faced with a police boat of the police box.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the second protocol of trial;

1. Each legal statement of witness C and D;

1. Statement of the police statement regarding C;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to images improving the quality of a product, each investigation report (No. 7,9 on the evidence list);

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 136 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. Judgment on the defendant's assertion under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act

1. There has been no violence by cutting down the balp of the alleged police officer;

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and examined by this court, the Defendant’s assault is recognized as stated in its reasoning.

(1) In CCTV images, although it is not clearly confirmed whether or not the Defendant carried breath, it is not clear whether or not the police officer, but after the police officer was pushed away from the police vehicle in front of the Defendant, it is confirmed that the police officer is a short time when the police officer moves back to the Defendant and moves back to the Defendant, and the police officer moves back to the Defendant.

In addition, it is not possible to find that the police officer or police officer in the vicinity of the defendant's assertion, such as the defendant's assertion, exercises a sudden tangible power against the defendant.

In addition to the act of the defendant with flaps, there is no other factor that may cause this damage.

② A taxi engineer who is a victimized police officer or witness made a statement in compliance with the facts charged at an investigative agency, and thereafter, he/she made a statement.