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 September 7, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around September 21:10, 2016, the Defendant: (b) around Gangseo-gu Seoul Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “Seoul”); (c) requested police officers G and H to return home to the Defendant, who were sent to the said office and occupation E-12 report.

shall be reported to the administrative department.

“In doing so, G assaulted G and H, i.e., pushing the chest part of G with both descendants and intending to get H as its head by putting He.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Statements made by witnesses G and H in the second public trial records;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to G and H;

1. E statements;

1. Investigation report (CCTV image analysis), the application of CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

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

1. Determination as to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which bears the costs of lawsuit

1. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is that the police officer called up did not exercise any tangible power or sprinked with sponsed hand in the process of protesting against the police officer called up, and the police officer took the sprinked hand of the Defendant and sprinked the Defendant on the floor using leading techniques.

These police officers' actions cannot be called legitimate performance of official duties.

Unless the performance of duties by police officers is illegal, the defendant's act does not constitute a crime of obstructing the performance of official duties.

2. Determination

A. According to each evidence of the judgment, the following facts are acknowledged.

(1) The Defendant: (a) resisting the police officer G, and H, who was demanded to return home; (b) obstructed the chest part of G by a bad hand.

G laid down the Defendant's hand in order to restrain this.

While the defendant flickly resists, the defendant flickly pushed the chest part of G with his hand.