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

At around 06:00 on January 18, 2012, the Defendant was subject to 112 sanctions against the Defendant’s disturbance on several occasions from G, a slope F of the Seoul Eastdong Police Station Ecomtation affiliated with the Defendant’s assistant F of the Seoul Eastdong Police Station Ecomtation, where the Defendant was faced with the disturbance, such as having brought a dispute with the Defendant’s children D, and taking the Defendant’s head on the above protection cryle board at the above protection cryle of the hospital receipt counter.

이에 피고인은 격분하여, 위 경찰관들에게 “야 이 짭새 새끼야, 씹새끼야, 좆같은 개새끼야.”라고 욕설을 하며, G의 얼굴에 주먹을 휘두르고 G의 목을 손톱으로 긁어 상처를 내는 등 G을 폭행하였으며, 소지하고 있던 윗옷을 휘둘러 경사 F의 머리를 2회 가격하였다.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning police officers G and F's on-site mobilization and maintenance of order.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness G, H, I, J, K, L, and F;

1. A G statement (including each photograph attached thereto);

1. Determination as to the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel on the investigation report (CCTV verification and binding)

1. The defendant and his defense counsel did not commit the act of obstructing the performance of official duties against the police officer G and F before the defendant is arrested, and there may be physical contacts with G or G injury, but this is merely a process of resistance against the illegal arrest of the defendant as a suspicion of obstructing the performance of official duties.

2. However, according to each evidence duly examined by this court, since the defendant's legitimate execution of duties by the above police officers dispatched to prevent the defendant from self-harm or damage by committing violence against G and F, and thereby the defendant's and defense counsel's above assertion is without merit.

Application of Statutes

1..