A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three months.

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.

Criminal facts

On August 19, 2017, at around 01:40, the Defendant recommended the Defendant to return home or move to another place in a astronomical public parking lot located in Gangdong-gu Seoul, Gangdong-gu, Seoul, upon receiving a report from 112 that the Defendant is female, and the circumstances belonging to the Gangwon Police Station C District of the Gangnam Police Station called up to the Defendant.

whether money has been received and has been in this place

“Along with the desire of the police officer, the police officer was hacker with the wheels of the two arms of the police officer, and the knee of the police officer was assaulted by the police officer in walking the knee of the police officer.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of reports and the maintenance of order by police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Each statement of E and F preparation;

1. Application of a copy of Chapter Four copies of a photograph of damage by a police officer;

1. Relevant Article 136 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

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

1. The gist of the assertion was that the Defendant was sleeped at the place stated in the facts constituting the crime in this case

Even if the defendant does not want to move the defendant to another place, the police officer does not have the right to move the defendant to another place by force.

Nevertheless, the reason why the defendant was called up after receiving the 112 report was forced to move the defendant, and the defendant did not assault the police officer only in the process of spreading it.

Therefore, it is difficult to view D's act in the course of being called out after receiving the report 112 at the time as legitimate execution of official duties. The defendant's act constitutes an act without the intention of assault, or an act of passive defense against illegal execution of official duties, and thus there is no illegality.

2. The judgment of this court is legitimate.