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

1. Around August 19, 2013, the Defendant: (a) requested the victim E (in women, 54 years old) to receive a report within the D convenience points located in Yansan-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City on August 19, 2013; (b) on the ground that the victim made the victim’s speech “direct report”, the Defendant committed assault against the victim, including the victim’s bomb and flag, on the one hand, on two occasions, on the part of

2. At around 02:10 on August 19, 2013, the Defendant: (a) arrested a flagrant offender at the lower seat of the F patrol Team located in the Yasan-dong, Yasan-dong, Yasan-dong, Yacheon-gu, and was escorted to the police station, and was escorted to the police station; (b) the Defendant expressed the victim H of the G police box, who was on the next seat of the police station, who was in the seat of the police station. “I am why he would be why he would have been hick; (c) I am the victim’s flaf, hick,” and obstructed the victim’s lawful performance of duties concerning the transfer of flagrant offenders on two occasions by assault, such as flafing the b

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of each police protocol of statement to I, E, and H;

1. Relevant Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing performance of official duties), the choice of punishment for the crime (the point of violence and the choice of imprisonment);

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter “Suspension of Execution”) on the grounds that the Defendant had the same criminal records, despite having the same criminal records, committed the instant crime on the grounds that he refused his request, and did not only commit any assault against others. Although the nature of the instant crime, considering the anti-social nature of the instant crime and the content of the instant crime and the degree of obstruction of performance of duties, etc., which interfere with the police officer’s performance of duties, it is not easy to say that the Defendant committed the instant crime in contingency under the influence of alcohol, and that the degree of assault is relatively minor, and that it is not easy to see that the degree of assault is relatively weak, and that the Defendant’s presence is unknown.