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

(e).

피고인은 2015. 5. 10. 22:05경 C에 있는 D파출소에서, 택시 요금 지급 문제로 시비가 되어 택시기사와 함께 D파출소에 왔다가 경찰관 E이 택시기사를 먼저 귀가하게 하자 갑자기 위 경찰관의 엉덩이를 발로 1회 찼다.

As above, the Defendant assaulted a police officer to interfere with the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties concerning handling reports 112.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statement to E;

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

1. The sentence of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the grounds of the suspended sentence [Scope of Recommendation] Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Performance of Official Duties is minor in the area of mitigation (one to eight months) [Special Mitigation] [Determination of sentence] of assault, intimidation, and deceptive scheme] [Determination of sentence] of the defendant is against the defendant's wrongness, E and E agree with the police officer who suffered damage does not want the punishment of the defendant, there is no criminal record exceeding the same kind or fine, and there is no significant degree of obstruction of performance of official duties, etc., the sentence shall be determined as per the order.

Public Prosecution Rejection Parts

1. On May 10, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 21:55 on May 10, 2015, sent a notification that the Defendant would not pay a taxi fee to the Defendant at the window of Changwon-si; (b) was sent to the instant police box located in C along with the victim E, a police officer affiliated with the police officer assigned by the said police box, who was called the victim; and (c) was able to ask questions about personal information from the victim; and (d) was openly insulting the victim, who was the taxi engineer, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant “sprinks” was “cucking.

2. The offense of insult is a crime falling under Article 311 of the Criminal Act, which can be prosecuted only upon the victim’s complaint under Article 312(1) of the Criminal Act.

According to the records, the victim E is the defendant after the prosecution of this case.