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

피고인은 2017. 2. 14. 00:05 경 광주 남구 D 아파트 102동 1003호에 있는 초등학교 동창생 E의 집에서 E, E의 친구 F과 술을 마시던 중 말다툼을 하다 F을 폭행한 것에 대해 112 신고를 받고 출동한 광주 남부 경찰서 G 지구대 소속 경사 H으로부터 폭행죄의 현행 범인으로 체포되자, H에게 “ 개새끼 죽여 버려. 내가 뭘 잘못했냐

In the end, “A police officer’s legitimate performance of duties concerning the arrest of a flagrant offender was obstructed by assaulting twice the face part of H by drinking, the bridge part of a bridge two times, and by walking the bridge.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with H and E;

1. Application of F’s written Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution - The crime of this case is not somewhat liable for the Defendant’s use of violence against the victimized police officers dispatched upon receiving a report 112. On the other hand, the Defendant’s mistake is seriously against the Defendant. The Defendant agreed with the victimized police officers, and the victimized police officers do not want the Defendant’s punishment. There has been past history of punishment for violent cases, but there is no same criminal record as it has long been punished.