A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On August 9, 2014, around 00:10, the Defendant assaulted two police officers, including a slope E-line c and 14 dong 404, who were in front of the Defendant’s house located in Won-si and 14 dong 404, who were reported on the domestic violence case 112, and sent out to the said place, and a slope E and a slope F, who saw off, string off, and pushed off, and pushed off, and pushed off, flaps with the shoulderF’s head, and flaps, who continued to restrain the flaps.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of 112 reported cases and criminal investigations by police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of each police protocol of statement to E and F;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime concerned;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Commercial Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505, Jun. 25, 2009)

1. There are circumstances that may be taken into account such as the fact that the defendant's reason for sentencing a sentence of selective imprisonment of the type of punishment is divided into his mistake, that a certain amount of money was deposited for the victimized police officers (see normal data of September 2, 2014), and that the defendant's health condition is not good. Meanwhile, the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of four years and six months on September 18, 2002 to a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act at the original branch of the Chuncheon District Court on September 18, 2002, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of four years and six months. On April 13, 2006, the Seoul High Court again committed the instant crime even if he had been committed several times of violence, such as a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a deadly weapons, etc.), and the obstruction of performance of official duties requires strict punishment as a crime detrimental to the function of the State by nullifyinging a legitimate exercise of public authority. In particular, the defendant's attitude of the crime of this case is very dangerous.