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

피고인은 2018. 4. 29. 00:25 경 인천 연수구 B에서 피고인의 처 및 피고인의 남동생과 말다툼을 하던 중, ‘3 명이 싸우고 있다’ 는 112 신고를 받고 현장에 출동한 인천 연수경찰서 C 지구대 소속 경위 D이 피고인을 제지하자 D의 얼굴을 주먹으로 2회 때리고, 공무집행 방해로 현행범인 체포되어 112 순찰차에 승차하는 과정에서 D의 다리를 발로 2회 걷어찼다.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statements made to D;

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (i.e., consideration of sentencing), [the scope of recommending sentencing] under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution of Official Duties (i.e., prevention of performance of official duties and coercion of duties) (i., six months or one year or one year or six months)] (i.e., no person subject to a special sentencing] (a decision subject to a sentence] (i.e., a decision subject to a suspended sentence); (ii) there is no criminal conviction or heavier than the same or suspended sentence; (iii) there is a defendant’