A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. On April 25, 2017, the Defendant: (a) while drinking alcohol at the F cafeteria operated by the Victim E (F 66 years old) in Busan, Daegu, Busan, on April 25, 2017; (b) requested the victim to sit on the table table, but refused to do so; (c) C Gab “Ping Chewing Z, Han Pool”

In addition, the victim's chests, bucks, and bucks that passed by the defendant were forced to commit an indecent act by force on several occasions.

2. The Defendant: (a) arrested a police officer under the Maritime Police Station of the Maritime Police Station who was dispatched to the scene after receiving a report on charges of forced indecent acts at the above time and place; and (b) moved to a police station to the police station to undergo an investigation in order to undergo the investigation after getting arrested of a police officer on the back seat of the patrol vehicle; and (c) stated that G who was seated on the side flasing flab "Wing flab flab flab flab flab flab flab flab flab flab flab flab flab bb

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement protocol with respect to E and G;

1. A criminal investigation report and a report on internal investigation (a photograph of the head where the defendant assaults a police officer;

1. A previous conviction: A criminal history inquiry, investigation report (report on the result of confirmation of the previous conviction of the disposition, and the date of release) / [The Defendant asserts to the effect that “(i) with respect to the obstruction of performance of official duties by G, there was no interference with the performance of official duties, or there was no intention to do so, and ② there was a mental and physical disorder at the time of the instant crime

① Facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court are that the crime of interference with the execution of official duties is established as a so-called abstract dangerous crime, and it does not require that the result of interference with the execution of official duties would actually occur (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do6725, Oct. 28, 2005).