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

On June 4, 2015, around 02:10 on June 4, 2015, the Defendant: (a) arrested the Defendant’s internal South-North-Named B as a flagrant offender in a separate assault case, and (b) prevented the victim D (the age of 26) who is a police officer belonging to the Songpa Police Station C district unit in Seoul from bringing the said B only into the criminal department and the office of the Songpa Police Station in order to restrain the Defendant from entering the above office; and (c) caused damage to the victim’s right side part that requires approximately two weeks of treatment.

As a result, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of a police officer on the arrest of a flagrant offender, and at the same time injured the victim D.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. A medical certificate;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of police officers damaged;

1. Articles 136 (1) and 257 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 62-2(1) of the Social Service Order Criminal Act [the scope of recommendation] general injury area of category 1 (general injury) and the aggravated area (6-2) (6-2 years) (in the case of obstruction of performance of official duties] [the decision of sentence] recognize and reflect the crime of this case, and there is no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine against the defendant.

However, in light of the fact that the Defendant was subject to criminal punishment of KRW 3 million for the obstruction of performance of official duties in 2015 and the fact that the Defendant agreed with the victim or failed to take a letter from the victim, etc., the Defendant selected a sentence of imprisonment. However, the Defendant’s sentence of suspension of execution of imprisonment by taking into account the degree of injury inflicted upon the police officer, the degree of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relation, environment, details and progress of the offense, etc., as indicated in the instant argument, and the sentencing