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

On April 14, 2017, at around 01:55, the Defendant reported to the effect that “the Defendant is sponsed at the upper house” in front of the Defendant’s residence located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C and 501, and sent to the site after receiving a 112 report, and that “the Defendant assaulted the Defendant’s sponsor, opening the front sponsor, opening the front sponsor for the field investigation of domestic violence, and talked by the Defendant, both hand, such as: (a) the sponsore E’s sponsore of the breast part of the sponsore E with a hand when the sponsor E was pusheded once.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the protection of police officers' body and criminal investigation.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. A written statement;

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

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment.

1. Although the reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended sentence is not sufficient to commit the instant crime even though the Defendant was punished as an assault force, it is not good that the Defendant committed the instant crime.

However, the sentence was determined by comprehensively taking into account the following factors: (a) the degree of interference with the performance of official duties is not much serious; (b) the confession and reflect of the crime; (c) the age, sex, circumstances after the crime; and (d) the various sentencing conditions indicated in the changed theory.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.