A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight 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 August 3, 2018, around 04:31, 2018, the Defendant committed assault, such as cutting off the Defendant’s chest, cutting down the Defendant’s chest, cutting down the fat, and cutting down the fat at the crosswalk, which was the police official belonging to the police unit of the subsidiary, Nowon-gu Police Station E-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (27 years old), and cutting down the Defendant’s chest from the fat, which was called upon 112.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the prevention, suppression and investigation of police officers' crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Investigation report (Analysis of CCTV images around the scene);

1. Application of statutes governing the place of work;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act / [the scope of recommended punishment] There is no basic area (from June to one year and six months) (the person who has been subject to special sentencing] [decision of sentence] unfavorable circumstances: The defendant exercised violence against a police officer who has performed legitimate duties, and the nature of the crime is not good.

The favorable circumstances: The mistake is recognized and reflected.

There is no record of punishment for the same crime.

In addition, the punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the defendant's age, motive and background of the crime, degree of interference with the performance of official duties, circumstances after the crime, etc. and various sentencing conditions shown in the theory of change.

Rejection of Public Prosecution

1. On August 3, 2018, the Defendant is guilty of the facts charged against the victim D (22 tax) who attempted to walk along the crosswalk at the front of the crosswalk in Bupyeong-si, Bupyeong-si on August 3, 2018.

“Influence,” and without any justifiable reason, assaulted the victim’s breath by drinking.

2. Determination

(a) Crimes of non-violation of intention (Article 260 (3) of the Criminal Act);

B. Expression of intention not to punish the instant case after the indictment

C. Judgment dismissing public prosecution (Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act)