A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Punishment of the crime

On May 26, 2014, at around 00:13, the Defendant argued in the restaurant B in Songsung-gu, Daegu Suwon-gu, 65, and the said B reported 112, sent back to the site the background D and slope belonging to the Daegu Suwon Police Station C District, and the said B returned to the site using patrol vehicles.

On May 26, 2014, around 00:30 on May 26, 2014, the Defendant: (a) discovered B from the patrol car in front of the Defendant’s residence located in the Daegu Suwon-gu F; (b) sought to assault B; (c) the said police officer took a bath that “Woo kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kbs,” on the ground that the police officer’s act was avoided; (d) 1 time in drinking the surrounding part of the above E, a police officer, flicked E, and flbing E’s kbs; and (e) flbling the chest of the above D, a police officer, three-time.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers in relation to the prevention, suppression and investigation of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of police statements of E and D;

1. On-site access reports, and each place of work;

1. Photographs of damaged parts;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a criminal investigation report (with regard to details of damage caused by D);

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended sentence [Scope of Recommendation] When there are many public officials suffering damage [one year or four years] in the area of aggravation of performance of official duties (one-year or four years of obstruction of performance of official duties] [Determination of sentence] Police Officers, and assaulting two police officers, thereby obstructing legitimate performance of official duties. However, it is not good that the crime is committed due to interference with legitimate performance of official duties. In full view of the major circumstances, including the fact that there is no same record, and that the defendant recognized and against the mistake, and other circumstances such as the motive, circumstance, means and method of the crime of this case, the circumstance before and after the crime, the defendant's age, character and behavior, career, environment, etc. as shown in the argument of this case.