A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight 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 21, 2016, the Defendant was requested to present an identification card from a slope belonging to the district unit of the Daejeon District Police Station D in the Daejeon District, Seo-gu, Daejeon District on 21, 04:00, “I wish to change the identification card on 112 days before male is female,” and “I wish to change the identification card on her own,” and “I wish to do so.”

Does there be a warrant;

It is inevitable that the Republic of Korea has his/her identification card. Whether he/she has his/her face as a drinking.

Dudly speaking “,” and assaulted the ethbbial bat of the above E.m.

As a result, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning the handling of 112 reports.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E, F and G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing the handling of reported cases, such as the place of work in the D District, and 112;

1. Relevant Article 136 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

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

1. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code of the Social Service Order

1. The police officers who received the report 112 on the summary of the argument demanded a presentation of identification card to the defendant, but the defendant refused to present his identification card to the police officers, and the defendant attempted to arrest the defendant merely because he refused to present his identification card although he did not exercise any tangible power first, and the defendant resisted to the above illegal arrest. Thus, the defendant's act in the process of illegal arrest constitutes an act of resistance against the illegal performance of official duties and thus, it does not constitute a crime of interference with the execution of official duties.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, “A male son son son son son her,” the police officer E and F, who called out after receiving 112 reports, attempted to listen to the case against the Defendant, etc. on the spot. However, as they interfered with the confirmation of the circumstances of the case while the Defendant was her desire to take the police officer and faced with riot, E, etc., and interfered with E