A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

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

Criminal facts

On July 11, 2014, at around 03:14, the Defendant: (a) reported to the effect that he was “brupted” before Sungnam-si, and (b) prevented the Defendant from exercising violence against F (the wife of the Defendant); (c) the defective shot E in order to arrest the Defendant; and (d) by hand, pushed the Defendant’s chest part of E’s chest and pushed it down under the stairs.

As a result, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the maintenance of public order of E, a police officer.

Summary of Evidence

1. Court statement of the defendant (the second trial date);

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on investigation reporting;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Considering the following grounds for sentencing)

1. The Defendant’s crime of this case with the reason of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act is a crime that obstructs the performance of official duties by assaulting a police officer on the lawful performance of duties. However, on the other hand, the Defendant’s mistake and reflects the fact that there is no record of punishment exceeding the fine, and the degree and content of assault committed to police officers and obstruction of performance of duties by comprehensively taking account of the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s sentence of imprisonment is to be imposed and the execution of the sentence is deemed appropriate on the condition of the performance of community service order; (b) the execution of the sentence is to be suspended on the condition of the performance of the community service order. Therefore,