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.

Punishment of the crime

On September 9, 2016, the Defendant: (a) reported on September 02:0, 2016, 112 that the host of the “D” on the road in front of the Health Center of South and North Korean National Police Agency, was used by the host of the “D” on the road of the Health Center; (b) instructed F of the Republic of South and North Korean National Police Agency E in his possession, who called the name “Stop” and carried out the bat of the above F’s batth and batch; and (c) assaulted F of the reported f’s face by taking advantage of the f’s face of the said F’s face.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the prevention, suppression and investigation of police officers' crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The legal statement of witness F and G;

1. 112 Notification of the details of processing reported cases;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs damaged;

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Determination as to the defense counsel’s assertion under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Code of the Suspension of Execution

1. The rationale behind the police officer’s request to reveal the gist of his/her assertion is that the police officer’s defense or legitimate act is a legitimate defense, since the police officer, without any justifiable reason, attempted to wear the Defendant.

2. According to the above evidence, in the process where police officers, who received 112 reports that a principal offender was found on two occasions more than twice, recommended the Defendant to return home, it is recognized that the Defendant committed an act, such as cutting down bat of a police officer’s bat and cutting down a spath, etc. as in the above facts constituting the crime.

According to this, the defendant's act cannot be viewed as a legitimate defense or a legitimate act.

Therefore, this part of the defense counsel's assertion is rejected.

Although the defendant committed the instant crime, he/she continued to have suffered unfair infringement of human rights by police officers until this court was established.

The circumstances after the crime are not good, such as appeal.

However, after the conclusion of the argument in this case, the Defendant did not well memory the drinking situation at the time, but he himself to police officers.