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

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

Punishment of the crime

On February 17, 2016, at around 21:50, the Defendant reported 112 while drinking alcohol at the back seat of the body vehicle in the name of the Defendant’s wife E, which was parked in the Kimpo-si Kimpo-si, and recommended the Defendant to return home to the Defendant by one other, the police officer, and the police officer, who called the Defendant to commit suicide on several occasions on the ground that the Defendant’s spouse is fired.

When hearing the Defendant’s speech and behavior, and finding out that there are three or more weeks of alcoholic beverages, large hand, etc. on the vehicles on which the Defendant was on board, the police officer decided the Defendant as a person likely to cause harm to his body and notified the Defendant that the Defendant would take protective measures to safely hand over to his family, and forced the Defendant to take patrol aboard the vehicle.

The Defendant resisted this G, and assaulted on the left side of G, such as raising a food towards this G, raising the left side of G one time as flaps, and flabing flaps.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties on police officers' protective measures.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. As to the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel, the Defendant and the defense counsel committed suicide against the police officer, on the part of the Defendant, such as report on internal investigation and the part of the assault, and the part of his/her working place, and the Defendant and the defense counsel. Since the Defendant committed suicide to the police officer, this constitutes an illegal performance of official duties, and the Defendant

This does not interfere with the performance of official duties.

The argument is asserted.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, since the defendant committed suicide against the police officer, the police officer was forced to board the patrol force to protect the defendant, and during that process, the defendant assaulted the police officer, and the police officer was only found to have inflicted on the defendant, and the police officer took protective measures against the defendant.