A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On April 2, 2015, at around 03:50, the Defendant made a disturbance that he would not pay food value at the “D” restaurant located in Busan District C, Busan District, and the victim F (the age of 46) who is a police officer belonging to the Busan District Police Station E District unit, who was dispatched to the site upon receipt of a report, recommended the payment of food value, the victim F (the age of 46) would make the face of the victim F by drinking, and the victim G slope (the age of 44) who is a police officer belonging to the same district unit (the age of 44) would have been able to flick down and flick the flick of the above victim G when he tried to control the Defendant.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties such as the on-site dispatch of the victims, etc., and at the same time, the Defendant inflicted injury on the left-hand side of the Plaintiff F, which requires treatment for about five days, on the left-hand side, and on the right side and the right side and the right side damage requiring treatment for about ten days on the part of G, respectively.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to F, G, and H;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report (on-site CCTV confirmation and attachment, and attachment of diagnosis certificates);

1. Articles 136 (1) and 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. In the case of assault and intimidation against multiple public officials performing the same official duties as prescribed in Articles 40 and 50 (Mutual Crimes of Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties, Mutual Crimes of F, Crimes of Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties, Crimes of Bodily Injury to G) of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes Act, multiple crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties are established according to the number of public officials performing official duties. The above assault and intimidation are committed in the same opportunity at the same place, and if they are assessed as one act under the social concept, multiple crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties are in a relationship of mutual concurrence.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505 Decided June 25, 2009). On the other hand, each of the crimes of injury in this case is in a substantive competition relationship by victim, but in F and G, the crime of injury is committed respectively.