A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On August 30, 2019, at around 06:30, the Defendant assaulted the 162-11, Gangnam-gu Seoul Gangnam-gu 162-1, on the road, such as a police officer of the Seoul Gangnam-gu Police Station B police box, C, a police officer of the Seoul Gangnam Police Station B police box, D, a police officer of the Seoul Gangnam Police Station B police box, to take a drinking test due to the suspicion that he was driven under the influence of alcohol against F, who is the Defendant’s seat, with the intent to obstruct this test, such as cutting off D’s shoulder, cutting off E’s arms, cutting off, and pushedping C.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on drinking driving investigation.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to D, C, and E;

1. Investigation report (the part against damage to the victim C);

1. In the investigation report (field police officer evidence video) [this case’s defense counsel stated that there was no intention of the obstruction of performance of official duties since the defendant merely told police officers that he would not arrest F by force. In the crime of obstruction of official duties, the criminal intent is to recognize that the other party is a public official performing his duties, and that he assaults or threatens against it, and it does not require any intent to interfere with the performance of his duties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do1949, Jan. 24, 1995). According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, even though police officers demanded F to respond to the alcohol measurement, the police officers did not refuse the alcohol measurement; the police officers informed F of the principle that the police officers did not resist; the police officers tried to arrest him as a flagrant offender of the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act; and the police officers were forced to leave F on the floor, and thus, the facts acknowledged in the course of arresting the defendant as stated in its reasoning.

In full view of these facts, it is legitimate for police officers to suppress F to arrest F by force, and the defendant assaults police officers.