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

On January 19, 2020, at around 14:39, the Defendant: (a) received a 112 report from “C” located in Daejeon Seo-gu B, Daejeon; and (b) took a bath to the said policeman to return home from E who was called to the site; (c) assaulted the said policeman’s shoulder and the chest part of the said policeman, with the Defendant’s hand, by pushing the said policeman’s shoulder and the chest part of the chest; and (d) assaulted the said policeman, booming him.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties concerning the on-site visit of the reported case.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Partial statement of the police interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. A written statement of F and G;

1. Police seizure records;

1. Application of investigation reports (on-site CCTV-related), CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order;

1. The scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines [decision of type] the obstruction of performance of official duties [Type 1]/ the obstruction of performance of official duties [the scope of recommendation field and recommendation range] there is no person subject to the coercion of official duties] (the scope of recommendation field and recommendation range] basic area, six months to one year and six months;

2. The sentence of sentence is not appropriate because the defendant, who received a report on his failure in a restaurant, assaults the police officer called out for service, and the nature of the crime is not good; and

In particular, the crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties needs to be punished as a crime prejudicial to the function of the state by nullifying the legitimate exercise of public authority.

The defendant did not pay damages to police officers, or have not received a letter of suspicion of obstruction of performance of official duties until now.

The defendant has been punished for committing a crime of different types of crimes several times.

However, it is against the defendant's wrong recognition.

It seems that the degree of force exercised by the defendant to police officers is not significant.

On the other hand, there is no criminal punishment exceeding the fine.