A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, 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 March 2, 2018, at around 16:15, the Defendant: (a) committed assault against the Defendant on the ground that “The Defendant continued to go to the south-do test and, as a threat, wanting to go to the telecom now; and (b) the police officers belonging to the Pyeongtaek-gu Police Station C police box called to the site upon receiving a report and a request for accompanying, would protect the reporter; and (c) committed assault against the said D’s grandchildren by booming the fingers of the said D, on his hand, on the ground that the police officers assigned to the site upon receiving a request for accompanying the report and the police officers assigned to the scene.”

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the police officer's legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D and E;

1. Each police statement made to D and E;

1. A report on investigation (2 reports);

1. Notification of a department related to reporting 112 cases;

1. Recording notes;

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act ( considered as the following favorable circumstances):

1. Determination as to the defendant and his/her defense counsel's assertion under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Probation, etc. Act

1. At the time of this case’s summary of the assertion, although the victim police officer was aware of the fact that the defendant was able to take the defendant’s hand, there was no fact that the victim police officer used the same violence as stated in the above facts constituting a crime, and rather, the victim police officer arrested the defendant strongly without notifying the principle.

2. The following circumstances revealed in light of the facts found by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, namely, ① the damaged police officer consistently made a statement from the investigative agency to the effect that “the Defendant was satisfing the Defendant’s handbling at the time of this case, and pushed the Defendant’s breast by hand,” ② the witness E also made a statement to the effect that it conforms to the statements of the victimized police officer in this Act and the investigative agency.