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.

Criminal facts

around 02:00 on April 18, 2014, the Defendant d and his body fighting on the front side of the C apartment in Silung-si, Silung-si.

12 The notification was received from the EthicalF belonging to the Silung Police Station Ethical Police Team Ethical police officer, or patrolmen, that fighting will be avoided and arrested as a flagrant offender in the course of violence.

Accordingly, the Defendant assaulted the police officer's 112 report and lawful performance of duties concerning the arrest of flagrant offenders by booming around 200 meters from the scene of mobile phones and booming about 200 meters from the above F, drinking f's face face face face face face part one time, and suppressing G's face part one time.

Summary of Evidence

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

1. The statement of each police officer made to F and G;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes concerning subordinate statutes to police officers' photographs;

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

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act to increase concurrent crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Consideration of sentencing)

1. The defendant and his/her defense counsel's assertion on the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Probation, etc. Act, and so long as the defendant were illegally arrested due to the failure of police officials to notify the principle of disturbance, it is difficult to see that police officials were in lawful performance of duties, and the defendant did not assault

The following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence, i.e., police public officials G who were called upon upon receipt of a report, consistently from investigative agencies to this court, and after speaking the Defendant’s fighting and arresting the Defendant as an offender in the act of assault. After the arrest of the Defendant, the Defendant’s cell phone was likely to escape while searching for the Defendant’s mobile phone at the request of the Defendant.