On April 10, 2016, the Defendant: (a) driven the D Oba in front of Ulsan-gu C, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-do; and (b) controlled the police officer F, who belongs to the police station E District of Ulsan-gu, Seoul-do, the Police Station Earb, by violating signal signals; (c) f, f, f, c, c, f, c, c, c, c, and c, c, f, c, f, c, c, f, c, c, c, the right side of the F; and (d) f, d, c, c, c, c, c, f, c, c, of the traffic control equipment

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of official duties of police officers on traffic control by assault.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to F and G;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on the photographic image of black stuffs;

1. Article 136(1) of the relevant Act regarding criminal facts; Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act of the same Act; the reason for sentencing a sentence of imprisonment with labor calls for and threatens a police officer to regulate a police officer’s lawful signal violation; the Defendant actively intended to perform his duties; the degree of intimidation in the process of performing official duties in light of the overall form of act; the degree of intimidation is serious; the court does not seem to have any attitude contrary thereto; the nature of the crime is not easy in light of the motive and circumstances of obstructing the performance of official duties; however, considering the circumstances favorable to the police officer, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, family relationship, home environment; and the motive and means of the crime; and the circumstance that the police officer did not exercise serious violence, etc., the sentence is determined as ordered, taking into account all the circumstances surrounding the sentencing conditions, such as the punishment conditions after the crime.