However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

피고인은 2018. 10. 18. 14:50경 서울 노원구 B아파트 2단지 앞 노상에서, “취객이 길에서 인사불성이다.”라는 112신고를 받고 출동한 노원경찰서 C지구대 경위 D이 피고인에게 술에 취했으니 집에 가라고 하였다는 이유로 화가 나 D에게 “짭새, 칼로 죽여버린다. 정년 퇴직을 해도 너는 끝까지 죽이겠다.”는 등 욕설을 하고, 주먹으로 D을 때릴려고 하고 손으로 D을 밀쳐 전봇대 쪽으로 넘어지게 하는 등 폭행하였다.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Each investigation report (whetherCCTV is installed and confirmation of a recording file/Listening to the contents of the recording file/ treatment/review report);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of damaged parts;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The basic area (six months to one year and six months) of the punishment for the obstruction of performance of official duties according to the sentencing guidelines (no person shall be subject to a special punishment):

2. In light of the detailed contents of the abusiveism, the degree of assault, etc. as a result of a crime in which violence was committed against a police officer called out after receiving a report of 112 on the sentence of sentence, the nature of the crime is not easy.

In addition, the defendant has a record of criminal punishment several times due to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and the crime of injury.

On the other hand, it seems that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and opposed to it.

In addition, the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments, such as the age, occupation, character and conduct, family relationship, and circumstances before and after the crime, shall be determined as ordered.