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

1. On August 16, 2015, the Defendant violated the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Drivers Violence) (hereinafter “Aggravated Punishment, etc.”) stated in the south-gu Incheon Metropolitan City on the front of “Cina” route operated by the victim D (51 years of age) and asked the Defendant at his destination while driving a taxi. On the ground that the Defendant took a bath for “Cina” to “Cina fri fri fri fri fri fri fri fri fri fri fri fri fri fri fri fri fri fri f

Accordingly, the Defendant assaulted the driver of a vehicle in operation.

2. Performance of official duties;

A. On August 16, 2015, at around 00:25, the Defendant: (a) received the report of the assault case in front of the Incheon Southern-dong Police Station F3 Public Security Center located in Nam-dong, Incheon, Nam-gu, Incheon; and (b) prevented the Defendant from assaulting D while confirming the facts between D and the Defendant; and (c) took the Defendant’s bath to “Seak-gu” on the ground that “Seak-gu, Seoul-dong Police Station G (33 years of age) called “Seak-gu,” and took the bath of G by hand.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of public duties by police officials on criminal investigation and protection of the host.

B. At around 00:50 on August 16, 2015, the Defendant spit spite, etc., which was arrested as a flagrant offender at the Incheon Southern-dong Police Station and the office on duty located in the Gangnam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Office of Police Station, and the office on duty, and heard the statement about the case against D and D, the Defendant spit spit spite, etc., and took two times off the Defendant’s speech, a police officer on duty, who was on duty, who was in charge of the examination of the documents of this case, to the police officer on duty, who was a police officer on duty, belonging to the above police station, and was arrested as a flagrant offender.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of public duties by police officials who were on duty in criminal and on duty.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police officer's statement about D and G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to H written statements;

1. Relevant Articles of the Act and the choice of punishment concerning the facts constituting the crime;