A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six 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 April 20, 2017, around 20:55, the Defendant is not able to believe that he or she is a police officer, without good cause, to a slope D, Inspector E belonging to the Seoul Central Police Station, who is investigating a reporter after receiving a report from 112 on the roads in front of Seoul Central District, Jung-gu, Seoul and investigating the reporter.

“In doing a bath with the foregoing D and E, and hear the words “A”, and assaulting the said D and E, intending to put the words “A” on a breath’s hand, thereby obstructing the said police officer’s legitimate performance of duties concerning the handling of reporting duties and maintenance of order.

Summary of Evidence

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

1. An investigation report (on-site verification), investigation report (on-site CCTV image reading) [the defendant alleged that there was no assault or intimidation to the extent that it may interfere with the police officer's performance of duties. Thus, the crime of interference with the performance of duties is established by assault or intimidation against a public official who performs his duties. “Assault” refers to the exercise of direct or indirect tangible power against a public official. In full view of the above evidence, comprehensively taking into account the facts that police officers, E, etc. dispatched a report of domestic violence case and heard the statement of the victim on the street after receiving a report of domestic violence case, the police officer asked the victim about the relation between the above police officer and the victim after visiting the victim. The above police officer asked the defendant to check that the defendant was aware of the victim's death, and request several times to return to the defendant after confirming that the defendant was the victim's death. Nevertheless, the defendant constantly refused to comply with the police officer's request and expressed his desire as stated in the crime, and the KONnex, and thus, it can be recognized that the defendant carried out his duties as a public official.

1. Each of the relevant Articles of the Act concerning the facts of crime;