A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

At around 01:40 on January 9, 2016, the Defendant: (a) committed assault against the victim E (the 36-year-old) who was urged to return home from the border site belonging to the Mapo Police Station D District District of Mapo Police Station that was called out after receiving a report from 112, among the 112-year-old 2-dong 1st floor entrance in Mapo-gu Seoul, Mapo-gu, Seoul, 2016, and obstructed the legitimate execution of official duties of the victim with regard to the reporting processing of 112 reports by assaulting the victim, such as spiting down bucks in the victim’s bucks.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Each police statement of E;

1. Investigative reports (No. 2 in the list), investigative reports (Hearing of statements from persons for reference), recording records, and reporting;

1. Work log in the D District; requests for investigation cooperation; details of handling reports filed in 112; replies to requests for investigation cooperation (Seoul Central Disaster Prevention Center) and emergency medical services;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as a dives photograph, field photograph, etc.;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 136 of the Election of Imprisonment;

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

1. The primary pressure, the use of the lock and the neglect of long time against the alleged defendant is an unfair physical restraint, and the subsequent act against the victim E can be seen as an act of resistance against the unlawful performance of official duties, and such an act cannot be viewed as an act of obstruction of performance of official duties.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence submitted to the court and duly admitted, it is reasonable to view that the police officers’ use of pressure and armores against the Defendant was a legitimate performance of duties.

Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument of the defendant and defense counsel.

A. F and H, a police officer, reported 112 to the effect that male in front of C apartment 2, 101, 102 reported that they had a breath of alcohol, and called for about 10 minutes at around 10 minutes, and the Defendant left the front door of 102 with his intention.