1. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months;

2.Provided, That the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive;

Punishment of the crime

On February 19, 2017, the Defendant: (a) on February 19, 2017, after receiving a report that domestic violence occurred in the Defendant’s residence located in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D and the third floor E; and (b) “pine”

It is why why much it has been made.

Pursuant to the report, the report has been filed.

B. B. B. B. B. B. L. B. was flicking the balth of the balth E, and around 03:40 on the same day, at the front of Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the principal directly reported 112 on the street, and then the balth of the balth E’s balth of the balth of the balth of the balth E, and the balth of the balth of the balth of the balthf called.

Accordingly, the defendant assaulted the police officer who was dispatched after receiving the 112 report, thereby hindering the legitimate execution of duties by the police officer.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Police statements made to E and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports ( telephone conversations between harvested persons G);

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Although an ordinary competition prosecutor was prosecuted for a simple one crime, where he/she committed violence or intimidation against multiple public officials as in the instant case, the crime of obstructing multiple public officials’ performance of official duties is established according to the number of public officials performing official duties. The foregoing assault or intimidation was committed in the same opportunity at the same place, and where it is assessed as one act in light of social norms, the crime of obstructing multiple public officials’ performance of official duties is in an ordinary competition relationship.

It should be viewed (Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505 Decided June 25, 2009, etc.). Meanwhile, the court recognized the same criminal facts as the same criminal facts and not as the simple one crime, but as the ordinary concurrent relationship.

Even if it is merely a different legal evaluation of the number of crimes, it does not mean that the facts that are different from the facts charged are not recognized, and it does not violate the principle of disadvantage and disadvantage because there is no concern about actual disadvantage to the defendant's exercise of his right of defense (see Supreme Court Decision 87Do527, May 26, 1987).