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

1. On October 5, 2015, the Defendant damaged the property property owned by the victim due to the fact that the victim did not enter his/her house at the victim D’s residence living together in Chuncheon City, 02:30 on October 5, 2015.

2. The Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties by assaulting the Defendant at the time, at the same time, and at the same place as paragraph (1) and at the same time and place as D’s 112 report, to arrest the Defendant as a crime of damaging property and to take the said F’s left right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right of the police officer.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

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

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to field photographs and damaged parts of the photograph;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, Article 366 of the Criminal Act that selects a punishment, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (a point of failing to perform official duties), and Article 136 (2) of the Criminal Act (a point of failing to perform official duties), and the

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

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

1. As to the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, the defendant and his/her defense counsel did not assault the police officer F at the time when the defendant committed a crime, and further, there was a fact that the defendant assaulted the police officer.

In the process of arresting illegal flagrant offenders committed by police officers at the time, the defendant abused police officers in a passive way of resistance. Thus, the above act does not meet the requirements of obstructing the performance of official duties, or the illegality is dismissed as it constitutes a legitimate defense.

However, in full view of witness F, G, H, and I’s consistent statements, the Defendant committed assault against police officers F as stated in the facts charged.