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

On September 27, 2018, from around 11:00 on September 27, 2018, the Defendant assaulted D while disputing D’s spouse at the Defendant’s office of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Party B, and accordingly, was notified that he was arrested from F to flagrant offender by the police officer belonging to the Seoul Gangseo-gu Police Station Estation, dispatched after receiving 112 reports.

On September 27, 2018, the Defendant, at around 12:25, 2018, resisted the arrest of a flagrant offender at the home of the Defendant, and received the F F’s Corpon part of the head.

As such, the Defendant assaulted police officers F to interfere with F’s legitimate performance of duties concerning F’s criminal investigation and maintenance of order, etc., and, at the same time, committed a non-fuseal frame, which requires approximately four weeks of treatment to the victim F (ma, 36 years of age).

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. A medical certificate;

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

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act;

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

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Regarding the assertion that there was no intention of obstruction of performance of official duties or injury, the defendant and the defense counsel asserted that the defendant had no intention of obstruction of performance of official duties or injury to the police officer, since the police officer got a part of the police officer F's head and did not assault the police officer F's head, but the police officer's body was at the f's f's f's f's f's f.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and examined by this court, namely, ① the police officer F, at the time of the investigation agency, was found to have been guilty of assault against the Defendant at the time, and was in order to notify the arrest of the flagrant offender, at the time, prices the Defendant’s own desire, sound, and flow back to the back, and thereby, the nose and the bones of the Defendant at the site.