A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

Around 02:30 on June 2, 2015, the Defendant appeared to be arrested as a flagrant offender due to suspicion of interference with duties and obstruction of performance of official duties by avoiding the disturbance of D, the Defendant, without any justifiable reason, abused the said E, by opening the door of the F patrol car on board the said D to prevent the interference with the above patrol car, and by taking the chest part of the chest part of the said E’s chest part of the Defendant’s chest back to the shoulder part of the Defendant’s shoulder.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Witness G and E’s legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning suspect examination of D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statements to G and E;

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

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. The defendant alleged that there was an excessive resistance that the degree of report by the police officer, other than slope E, to arrest D as a flagrant offender, was the same as excessive, and there was no interference with the police officer from opening the door of the patrol vehicle to prevent the patrol vehicle from departing from the patrol vehicle or from being broken off the chest part of the above E.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence held in the judgment, it can be recognized that the defendant interfered with the duty of arresting the police officer in the same manner as the stated in the facts charged to the assistant E who called up for the obstruction of duty and arrested the D as a flagrant offender, and it is difficult to view the defendant's refusal to accompany and passive resistance in the process of arresting him as a flagrant offender.

Therefore, the defendant and defense counsel's arguments are not accepted.

The reasons for sentencing [the scope of recommendations] obstruction of performance of official duties.