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

1. On July 28, 2016, the Defendant assaulted the victim’s face twice in his/her hand while he/she tried to sit in plastic chairs owned by the victim who was at the entrance of a restaurant at “E” restaurant operated by the Daegu-gu Seo-gu, Daegu-gu (hereinafter referred to as “E”) around 23:23 on July 28, 2016, because he/she was damaged by his/her will, thereby compensating the victim for the damages.

2. On the same day, at around 23:55 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) arrested a flagrant offender for the commission of the crime described in paragraph (1) at the Daegu Seongbuk Police Station F police box located in the Seocho-gu, Daegu; (b) prevented a disturbance while waiting for the Defendant; (c) caused G police officers who belong to the above police box to set the Defendant’s lock, cut the Defendant’s lock, cut the Defendant’s lock, cut the Defendant’s hand, cut the Defendant’s hand, and cut the Defendant’s hand in the toilet; and (d) again refused to take the hand, and assault the Defendant’s right hand, etc. on a single-time basis.

As a result, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties of police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. Application of the investigation report (on the spot and attaching photographs of victims), investigation report (limited to sponsor spons of CCTV images) Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Articles 260(1) and 136(1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (including the first offender, degree of violence, etc.);

1. The argument that the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is not established since the Defendant committed an unlawful act by the police officer, such as taking the lock, etc., of the Social Service Order Criminal Act. However, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant, recognized by the adopted evidence, was arrested as a flagrant offender; and (b) the Defendant’s situation and words at the time of arrest and police box, etc., it is deemed that the police officer who used the lock was illegal.