A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six 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.

Punishment of the crime

around 00:08 on January 7, 2018, the Defendant: “A police officer E ( South, 36 years old) belonging to the D District District of the D District of the D District Police Station of the Chungcheongbuk-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Cheongdong-si, who is under the influence of this alcohol, she was under the influence of returning home to himself/herself,” and “Iskin Haba, Haba, Isk, Isk in the house, Iskin.”

"The defendant's head was the chest of the victim, and the victim's chest was tightly pushed down two times due to the two descendants.

Accordingly, the defendant assaulted police officers in the performance of official duties, thereby hindering police officers from performing their legitimate duties on public security.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the arrest report and internal investigation report of the occurrence of the case (CCTV);

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. As to the assertion of defense counsel and the defendant under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (such as the reflection of gender, and the absence of the same kind of criminal record) of the suspended execution, the defense counsel and the defendant committed the crime of this case in the state of detention

The argument is asserted.

However, since the facts charged are recognized, it shall not be construed to the effect that the ability to assume responsibility should be restricted.

Along with such assertion, in light of the circumstances before and after the crime of this case, the circumstances leading to the crime, and the defendant's behavior, etc., which are acknowledged by the above evidence, it cannot be deemed that the defendant did not have or lacks the ability to discern things at the time of the crime of this case, and further, it is judged that the defendant committed the crime of this case in such a state as sufficiently predicted the occurrence of danger in light of ordinary drinking behavior and the circumstances leading to drinking at the time of this case. Thus, the above assertion is rejected.