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

On March 27, 2019, at around 01:00, the Defendant was arrested as a flagrant offender under suspicion of assaulting the employees of the above main agent by the police officer E and the guard F, who was dispatched to the scene after receiving a report from 112 that “C” ransium located on the first floor of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, and “the male franscing with the riot.” On March 27, 2019, the Defendant assaulted the Defendant at one time on the right hand, with the right hand hand hand, the Defendant assaulted the police officer E’s brancing part on the right hand, with the brancing part on one hand.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers related to the arrest of flagrant offenders.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of each statute of G, H and F

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act selecting a penalty;

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;

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act are as follows: (a) the crime is not good to obstruct the performance of official duties by assaulting police officers; (b) the accused confessions and reflects his own crime; (c) the circumstances and methods of the crime; and (d) the circumstances before and after the crime; and (c) the sentencing factors regarding the instant case, such as