A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

(e).

Punishment of the crime

Around 00:50 on January 2, 2016, while the Defendant avoided the Defendant from the toilet of the building located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and drive away from the E, the Defendant discovered that the police officer, who was the police officer of the Seoul Gwangjin Police Station I Police Station, dispatched to the area around 01:02 on the same day, requested H to assist his Ha in the bus stops located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and reported by H.

Accordingly, the above Defendant is a police officer (“Nina”) to the police officer

The father of our country is also a police officer who can continue the life of the police officer;

씨 발 놈들 아 ”라고 말하며 위 경찰관의 멱살과 허리춤을 잡아 흔들고 경찰관의 오른쪽 정강이를 발로 걷어찼다.

Despite other police officers' restraint, the defendant continued to cross the above police officer's bridge, spabbbling, spabling, and assaulted the above police officer.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning 112 reporting handling duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness J and K;

1. Each police statement made to J and H;

1. Written Statement;

1. The Defendant’s act of responding to the police officer’s act is not a legitimate performance of official duties, and thus does not constitute interference with the performance of official duties. The Defendant and the defense counsel asserted to the effect that the Defendant’s act does not constitute interference with the performance of official duties, since the Defendant and the defense counsel acknowledged the criminal facts at the first trial date.

However, the facts constituting the crime in the judgment are sufficiently recognized as having interfered with the Defendant’s legitimate execution of duties concerning “112 Report Processing Affairs” rather than J’s arrest, and according to the aforementioned evidence, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant, upon receiving H’s 112 report, was assaulted as stated in the police officer J’s judgment, who tried to investigate the details of the report from H.

Accordingly, the defendant and the defendant.