The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Of the facts charged of this case, the prosecution against assault is dismissed.

Punishment of the crime

On November 12, 2016, the Defendant: (a) obstructed the police officer’s legitimate execution of duties on the investigation of crimes and prevention of crimes in the police officer’s blap spit, flap, etc., in which F, a police officer belonging to the Nam-gu Police Station E box of Suwon-gu Police Station, who was reported in front of the D main station located in Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, the Defendant: (b) prevented the Defendant from assaulting G; and (c) interfered with the police officer’s lawful execution of duties on the investigation of crimes and prevention of crimes by blaping his arms

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Each statement of H and G;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to spits spits by cutting off a victim's flaf photograph or a visual image, or by cutting off a flaf photograph or external CCTV image on the site;

1. Article 136 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties), and the selection of fines for the crime;

1. Penalty fine of 2,00,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended sentence (the fact that there is no record of criminal punishment, the fact that there is no record of criminal punishment, the depth of mistake, and the prosecution will not be committed again;

dismissed part of the prosecution, such as the fact that the police officer's use of violence is minor, living environment, etc.

1. On November 12, 2016, the Defendant: (a) 22:32 on the street in front of the D main shop in Suwon-si, Suwon-si; and (b) on the ground that the Defendant was in a dispute with the victim, on the ground that the Defendant was bad within the victim G (24 tax) said D main shop in this case; (c) in the course of having a dispute with the victim, the Defendant dated the victim’s breath with his hand, and assaulted the victim by breading the breath.

2. This part of the facts charged is a crime falling under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s explicit intent in accordance with Article 260(3) of the Criminal Act.

Since it can be recognized that the defendant expressed his/her intention not to be punished after the prosecution of this case, the prosecution is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.