A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six 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

On March 6, 2018, the Defendant used mobile phones in front of the Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government “C” on the road in Jongno-gu, Seoul. After being subject to control from the border F of the police station E affiliated with Seoul Hypo Police Station, the Defendant took charge of issuing the notice of penalty to the said police officer as soon as possible, while making a clause to request the above police officer to promptly issue the notice of penalty, the Defendant’s part below the police officer’s non-police line .

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on traffic control.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness F and G;

1. Entry of each part of the police protocol and the suspect examination protocol against the accused in the prosecution;

1. Investigation report (the fact of interference with the performance of official duties of a suspect), investigation report (the verification of video recording of CCTVs 51,85)

1. A CD for video recording of CCTVs on spirits 51;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the photographs of assistive police officers, etc.;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Claims by the Defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act regarding community service order

1. The Defendant alleged that he requested F to issue a penalty notice to F by the police officer, but the Defendant resisted the above police officer as to the disregarding fact and prevented the Defendant from getting off the vehicle. However, the Defendant, without responding to the demand, attempted to issue a penalty notice and return to the police officer.

Therefore, when the above defendant demanded the police officer to answer the defendant's civil petition, the police officer arrested the defendant as a flagrant offender interfering with the performance of official duties.

The physical power exercised by the defendant is insignificant and passive, and thus does not constitute violence or intimidation.

Nevertheless, the above police officer's act of arresting the defendant by exercising excessive force is illegal.

2. Determination

A. It is acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of this case concerning the crime of interference with the performance of official duties.