A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On May 2, 2018, the Defendant stated that the proxy driving engineer D who did not receive the substitute driving fee from the Defendant, in front of the B in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, U.S., U.S. on May 2, 2018, stated that the proxy driving engineer D who did not receive the substitute driving fee from the Defendant. However, according to the record, the name of the proxy driving engineer is specified as D (Evidence No. 16 pages).

Since the Defendant led to the instant crime, unlike the facts charged, entering the name of the substitute driver in the name of the Defendant does not seem to have a disadvantageous effect on the exercise of the Defendant’s right to defense.

F of the police box belonging to the Ulsan-gu Police Station Estation called "Woo Dob Dob Dob Dob Dob Dob Dob Dob Dob Dob Dob Dob Dob Dob Dob Dob Dob Dob Dob Dob Dob Dob Dob Dob Dob Dob Dob Dob Dob Dob Dob Dob Dob Dob Dob Dob Dob Dob Dob b

“Intimidation”, the police officer asked the Defendant to return to the said police box after the police officer asked him/her to return to the said police box, the police officer obstructed the police officer from closing the door of the police box in his/her hand, and assaulted the police officer by blocking the progress of the vehicle by preventing the police officer from going to the front of the patrol box on his/her body.

Accordingly, the Defendant, the police officer, and the above G 112 report processing duties, respectively, discharged the legitimate execution of duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Video data recorded on a mobile phone;

1. The Defendant asserts that, as to the Defendant’s assertion of the investigation report (to listen to the statement by a witness H phone), the Defendant only committed verbal violence against police officers and did not commit assault against police officers.

Therefore, violence in relation to the obstruction of public service performance is not only the exercise of direct tangible power against public officials but also the exercise of indirect tangible power.