A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal records] On December 17, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint property damage, etc.) at the Daegu District Court (Tgu District Court) and completed the execution of the sentence on June 8, 2016.

[2] On January 20, 2017, at the D station located in Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, the Defendant received a report from the police officer E and F, who belongs to the Korean National Railroad Department, and moved to D branch office, and received the face of the said E as a food without any particular reason, while moving to D branch office.

이에 따라 피고인은 철도 안전법위반 혐의로 현행범 체포된 후 철도 경찰대 D 출장소 사무실에서 대기용 의자에 앉아 있던 중 발로 위 F의 왼쪽 정강이 부위를 걷어차고, 위 E의 오른쪽 정강이 부위를 걷어찼다.

On the same day, the Defendant continued to take a bath at around 15:16 on the same day, and opened a computer monitor installed in the above office in his hand, etc., and calculated the face with the left hand of the defect that is likely to cause the F to escape from the disturbance and prevent the said F from doing so.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the railroad projects of the above E and F as a railroad worker.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness G, H, I, E, and F;

1. A report on investigation (a self-injury of a suspect) and a report on investigation (the details of arrest);

1. Application of the victim E-victim photographs, the victim E-scope photographs, the damaged side photographs of the victim F, and CCTV video-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 78 (1) and Article 49 (2) of the relevant Act on the Safety of Railroads for Criminal Facts;

1. The prosecutor of Article 40 and Article 50 of the Commercial Code charged the above crimes against two railroad police officers as substantive concurrent crimes, but the court, upon examination, recognized that the above crimes are persons related to the commercial concurrent crimes (Supreme Court Decision 2009Hun-Ga6 delivered on June 25, 2009).