A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On March 24, 2018, the Defendant was arrested as a flagrant offender in the case of assaulting E living together by the Defendant, and was waiting to undergo an investigation at the said district group on March 24, 2018, at the same time, from the “D District” located in Ansan-si, Ansan-si, Ansan-si, Ansan-si, and the Defendant was waiting to undergo an investigation at the said district group. “When the Defendant is a victim, she shall undergo an investigation.”

“A police officer, who said police officer, said that he goes home to work after an investigation by the Defendant, said police officer “I wish to go out of the patrol zone because I would have to go home to work.” The police officer and the police officer belonging to the said patrol zone attempted to check the above police officer out of the patrol zone, and prevented the victim, and the police officer and the police officer belonging to the said patrol zone resisted the victim as soon as I resisted the left hand of the above H.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the suppression and investigation of police officers' crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness H;

1. Partial statement of witness E;

1. 112 A list of reported cases;

1. A photo of the damaged part;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to CCTV CDs related to interference with the performance of official duties (par06 -206 -2402402517.mp4, file reproduction time: 00:48 : 00 :48 : 03-24-2018 : 02:04 : 03-26:04);

1. Relevant Article 136 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the grounds that the defendant committed a crime interfering with the performance of official duties within the boundary of the zone and the nature of the crime is not good, but considering that the defendant has no specific criminal history in addition to the protect

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that this case occurred in the course of the defendant's attempt to move out of the earth in order to maintain stability due to a yellow disorder, and thus constitutes a justifiable act.

The results of CCTV CDs related to interference with official duties duly adopted and investigated by this Court are followed.