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

(e).

1. 공무집행방해 피고인은 2020. 1. 21. 14:35경 인천 남동구 B에 있는 'C' 매장 부근에서, 위 매장 안에서 난동을 부리고 있다가 그 곳을 방범순찰하고 있던 인천남동경찰서 D 소속 의무경찰인 순경 E에 의해 매장 밖으로 끌려나오자 갑자기 손바닥으로 위 E의 왼쪽 뺨 부위를 강하게 1회 때리고, ‘C 매장 앞인데 주취자의 행패가 심하다’는 취지의 지원요청을 받고 현장에 출동한 인천남동경찰서 F지구대 소속 경장 G에 의해 제지당하자 화가 나, 발로 위 G의 정강이 부위를 힘껏 1회 걷어찼다.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning 112 report processing.

2. In the same date, time, and place as indicated in paragraph 1, the Defendant insultd the victim by openly insulting the victim by emphasizing the victim’s G as he/she was placed at the victim, and as he/she was reported to the victim, the victim, who is the victim, by putting him/her at large interest to the victim G.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing CCTV images taken at each police station's statement against E and G;

1. Selection of each sentence provided for in Articles 136(1) and 311 of the Criminal Act, which are applicable to applicable provisions of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of each sentence provided for in Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act requires strict punishment compared to ordinary assault acts in cases where the defendant assaults police officials who properly perform their duties, thereby impairing the function of the State, and furthermore, insults.

However, it is advantageous to the fact that E submitted a written agreement that he does not want the punishment of the defendant, and the defendant has no criminal history.