However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

피고인은 2019. 12. 26. 23:49경 남양주시 B아파트 C동 1층 앞 길에서, ‘때려 부수는 소리가 난다‘는 112신고를 접수받고 현장에 출동한 남양주경찰서 D지구대 소속 경사 E가 주취상태인 피고인을 부축하고 피고인의 행위를 제지하자 위 E의 오른손을 강하게 잡고 비틀고, 팔로 몸을 밀치고, 발로 왼쪽 허벅지를 1회 걷어찼다.

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 to E by the police;

1. Investigation report (Scamp image verification);

1. A DNA image photograph;

1. 112 Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the Report Processing Table;

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 of the Criminal Act of the community service order;

1. Scope of punishment by law: One month to five years;

2. The scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines [decision of types] the obstruction of performance of official duties (category 1] and the absence of the obstruction of performance of official duties [the scope of the recommended area and the scope of the recommended punishment], the basic area of the obstruction of performance of official duties (the scope of the recommended area and the recommendation), six months to one year and six months.

3. Determination of sentence: A defendant who has been sentenced to a suspended sentence for eight months has been sentenced to a fine in 197 for the same crime, has been sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment in 2005, and has been sentenced to several penalties for violent crimes;

Nevertheless, the crime of this case has been repeatedly committed.

The instant crime was committed against a police officer in uniform, and thus, is highly likely to interfere with the legitimate performance of official duties, thereby causing harm to the safety of another person’s body and property.

Considering the above circumstances, the responsibility of the defendant is heavy.

However, there have been about 15 years since the defendant was punished as a crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, and the defendant recognized the crime of this case.