A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight 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 27, 2015, at around 22:10, the Defendant did not pay the drinking value with drinking alcohol at D frequency located in Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Bupyeong-gu, and was requested by F to calculate the drinking value and return to the Republic of Korea after receiving 112 report, but refused this request, and was arrested as an offender in the act of committing an act of committing an offense, the Defendant attempted to take the face of F with a Handphone, and assaulted the F’s right-hand f’s face by using a Handphone, which was cited by her hand, once.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers on the investigation of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Each police statement related to G and H;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as a food value invoice, CCTV-faging photograph, field photograph, etc.;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel guilty of Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act, and the defendant's act of not calculating the drinking value on the day of this case does not constitute a crime of fraud. Thus, the police officer's attempt to arrest the defendant in the act of fraud cannot be deemed legitimate performance of official duties. Therefore, the defendant's act of assaulting F in the course of resistance cannot be deemed as obstruction of performance of official duties.

In light of the evidence adopted and examined by this Court, the following circumstances revealed: (i) the Defendant sent a drinking at D frequency with one driver on the day of this case and did not calculate the drinking value in the remaining condition; (ii) the Defendant continued to demand the calculation of the drinking value; and (iii) the police officer F, etc. who sent a notice to G, with the absence of money, did not report to 112; and (iv) the police officer F, etc. who sent a notice to G, with the Defendant.