A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On December 9, 2016, the Defendant voluntarily accompanied to the said district by refusing to verify the personal information of the Daejeon Police Station C District D and E, who was called for, after receiving a report from 112, due to the fact that there was an uneasiness for women, in front of 1231 Hanma-dong, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon.

On the same day, the Defendant confirmed the personal information of the Defendant, and caused the Defendant to be faced with the wall that was pushed down by cutting off the breath ebbbbbbb in hand with the defect in order to issue a penalty for a crime due to an uneasiness, at around 08:30 on the same day.

As a result, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers in relation to the situation service and case handling.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Reporting interference with the arrest of public officials;

1. A report on investigation and a report on investigation (Attachment to photographs of the scene of crime);

1. The third district office;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing the 112 Reporting Case Handling List;

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 Act on the Suspension of Execution (Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act provides that the Defendant has committed the instant crime, the Defendant has no criminal record like the Defendant, the Defendant has no criminal record of a crime since 2003, and the Defendant deposited a certain amount of money to the police officer victimized by the Defendant, etc.), under normal circumstances favorable to the Defendant, assaulting the police officer to perform legitimate public duties by taking uniform is deemed to hinder the exercise of justifiable public authority that should

Therefore, the criminal liability is heavy.

It can be seen that the defendant did not agree with the victim police officer, that the victim police officer strongly wanted to punish the defendant, that the defendant refused to summon the defendant after being duly summoned by the court, and that the defendant was punished for the crime of double-class.