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

1. 공무집행방해 피고인은 2019. 3. 27. 14:25경 인천 남동구 B에 있는 C 앞 노상에서, ‘술에 취한 사람이 쓰러져서 행거가 망가지고 옷도 손괴가 됐다’는 내용의 112신고를 받고 출동한 인천남동경찰서 D지구대 소속 경찰관 E이 피고인에게 파손된 물건에 대한 배상 의사를 묻자 “뭐! 어쩌라고! 내가 무슨 잘못을 했냐!”라고 소리를 지르면서 E의 가슴을 주먹으로 1회 때리고, 함께 출동한 경찰관 F의 팔을 밀치는 등 폭행하였다.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of report cases and the maintenance of order by police officers.

2. The Defendant interfered with the operation of the victim’s store by force by force, such as destroying the victim’s movement, etc. owned by the victim G while under the influence of alcohol, as described in paragraph (1), and assaulting the police officer dispatched, etc. for about 35 minutes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement concerning E, F, G, and H;

1. Application of Chapter 6, such as site photographs, Chapter 8 of the defendant's photograph, Chapter 8 of the investigation report (a shot person's statement), mobile video CDs, and bar cinematographic CDs-related statutes;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment;

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

1. Circumstances unfavorable to the sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act: A person who has been sentenced to one time a fine due to his previous offense of violence, and three times a fine due to his previous offense of interference with business.

Police officers are punished.

The favorable circumstances: Recognizing the crime, the mistake is divided.

There is no history of punishment exceeding a fine.

.Influence.