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

(e).

At around 22:00 on May 30, 2019, the Defendant: “Around 22:00, at the Nam-gu B apartment next parking lot,” “The 112-report was received and sent to the site to check the Defendant’s personal information,” and the Defendant assaulted D’s shoulder part by hand.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the police statement law to D;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act under the suspended sentence is that the defendant is making a confession of the crime of this case, there has been no history of punishment for the last 15 years, the previous crime is not the same criminal record and has no record of punishment exceeding the fine, and the victim police officers have tried to find two times to commit the crime. As a result of the court's sentencing investigation, the court made efforts to find the police officers who have suffered damage caused by the sentencing investigation that the defendant's age, environment, motive for the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc. shall be determined as per the order, taking into account various factors of sentencing

Public Prosecution Rejection Parts

1. The Defendant: (a) around 22:00 on May 30, 2019, at the Ulsan-gu B apartment following the Nam-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-gu parking lot, the Defendant, under the influence of alcohol, landed the part of the beams of the vehicle parked by the victim E with drinking; (b) when the victim resists, the Defendant stated that “this son son son son son son..............”; (c) once a part of the part of the victim’s clothes by drinking, and carried the victim’s shoulder by hand.

Accordingly, the defendant assaulted the victim.

2. The offense of assault under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act in the judgment shall not be prosecuted against the clearly expressed will of the victim as an offense of an anti-roption penalty.

According to the records, the records are examined.