A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six 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 December 22, 2018, at around 21:40, the Defendant laid off from B’s taxi (D) in front of the Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and publicly insulting B by openly insulting B, on the grounds that B was deemed to have been able to recover from the Defendant’s animal at the troke line, and that B was able to pay the taxi fee, the Defendant said B would have died at one time, while viewing multiple actors, such as flap, flap, and flap, will throw away at one time.”

In addition, at around 21:50, the Defendant assaulted B by having the face of B one time in the above place.

After the Defendant was arrested as a flagrant offender with regard to the above suspected criminal charges, at around 22:20, the F police box located in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Defendant expressed a bath to a slope G, a police officer affiliated with the Seoul Gwanak-gu Police Station F police box, for arresting the Defendant, and assaulted G’s chest by taking away the breath of G, which was the left hand and pushed the breath of G, with the left hand.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of duties by police officers on the prevention, suppression, and investigation of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. Application of the police protocol protocol law to B

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

1. Determination as to the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. The gist of the assertion was that G arrested the Defendant as a flagrant offender, and thus, it was not legitimate to perform official duties.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of this case, namely, G, the fact that the Defendant informed the Dara principle to the patrol vehicle immediately after the patrol vehicle, and ② the above statement is consistent with the police investigation immediately after the instant case.