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

피고인은 2019. 4. 23.경 창원시 마산회원구 B에 있는 ‘C노래방’ 앞에서 소리를 지르고 들고 있던 우산을 땅에 던지는 등 난동을 부리고 있던 중, 피고인의 아버지로부터 ‘아들이 D 정신병원에 입원 중인데 도망을 가서 마산역 주변을 돌아다니고 있어 위험하다.’는 112신고를 받고 출동한 마산동부경찰서 E파출소 경장 F이 피고인의 아버지와 대화를 해볼 것을 권유하자 갑자기 “야이 짜바리 새끼들아, 느그가 먼데 내한테 이라는데, 야이 씨발놈들아, 느그 이럴 법적 권한이 있나 ”라는 등의 욕설을 하면서 위 F의 멱살을 잡아 흔들고 손톱으로 위 F의 가슴 부위를 긁고 손으로 위 F를 밀어 넘어뜨려 위 F로 하여금 엉덩방아를 찧게 하고, 오른쪽 무릎이 땅에 쓸리게 하는 등 위 F을 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. The police statement concerning F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report internal investigation (with respect to failure to prepare a notice of arrest);

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 136 of the Election of Imprisonment;

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

1. It is not good that the crime is committed in such a manner that probation, Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, and Article 44-2 and subparagraph 2 of Article 2-3 of the Medical Treatment and Custody, etc. Act are intended to take a bath to police officers and exercise physical strength;

On the other hand, the defendant recognizes and reflects the facts of crime.

There was an agreement with the victimized police officer and there was no record of punishment.

In addition, the sentencing conditions, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances, circumstances after the crime, etc., shall be determined as per the order.