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

피고인은 2015. 4. 7. 14:04경 삼척시 B에 있는 삼척경찰서 C파출소 내에서 음주운전 사건 등으로 조사를 받던 중 파출소 내에서 담배를 피우려고 하였고, 위와 같은 모습을 목격한 C파출소 상황근무자 경위 D가 피고인에게 “관공서 내는 금연 장소로 지정되어 담배를 피울 수 없으니 밖으로 나가서 담배를 피우시죠”라고 이야기하자, 위 D에게 “좃까지마, 어차피 잘못된 거잖아 이 씹새끼야" 라고 욕설을 하면서 의자에서 일어나 머리 부위로 D의 가슴 부위를 1회 들이 받는 방법으로 폭행하여 경찰관의 파출소 상황근무에 관한 정당한 직무집행을 방해하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the police statement law to D;

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

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act are favorable factors for sentencing, including the fact that the defendant acknowledges and reflects the crime, and that the defendant has no criminal record exceeding the fine, and that the defendant has been sentenced to a fine for the same kind of crime in 2001, etc. are disadvantageous factors for sentencing.

In full view of such various sentencing factors and other circumstances as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive, background, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the punishment shall be determined within the scope of the sentencing guidelines [within the scope of imprisonment for not more than eight months: obstruction of performance of official duties, obstruction of performance of official duties, obstruction of performance of official duties, types 1 and mitigation area (in cases where the degree of violence is minor), and