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

The Defendant was arrested as a flagrant offender in the crime of assault by the police box of the Seoul Seongdong-gu Police Station, the police box of the Seoul Sungdong Police Station, etc., who was called out after receiving the report of violence from the person E with the main points of “D” located in Seongdong-gu Seoul, and was arrested by the Defendant.

Around 02:10 on April 23, 2014, the Defendant, at the front of the foregoing main point, committed a assault, such as: (a) the Defendant: (b) expressed that he would be able to fluorize the front of G in front of the process of driving E, etc., and (c) fluordly interfered with force and fluorly interfered with G, and (d) expressed that “I am fluor, other than I fluor, dead, dead, and bluored, I am blusium part of G in front of the instant main point; and (b) expressed the attitude that I would have been able to fluen his face

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the police officer's report processing and the lawful execution of duties concerning the arrest of flagrant offenders.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement concerning G;

1. A written statement prepared in H and E;

1. A report on investigation (CCTV image data), (supplic picture) - a photograph attached thereto;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a copy of the service log in the F box;

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

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

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act is an assault against a public official who performs official duties, and the nature of the crime is not weak, but the degree of assault and obstruction of performance of official duties is not serious. In the drinking house operated by E, which is the defendant's seat, E and its customers were viewed as a drinking-value problem, and the defendant was reported as 112. The defendant regarded E as a victim and reported as 112, and the police officer arrested E as a flagrant offender, and it does not seem to be a planned crime, and there are some circumstances to consider the circumstances of the crime of this case.