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

피고인은 2015. 1. 25. 02:40경 창원시 의창구 B에 있는 C편의점 안에서, 소란을 부린다는 112신고를 받고 출동한 창원서부경찰서 소속 경위 D와 경사 E로부터 신분증 제시 및 귀가할 것을 요구받자 “야 이 개새끼들아, 내가 뭘 잘 못 했노, 이 개새끼야, 너거 마음대로 해라, 이 씹할 놈들” 이라고 욕을 하면서 주먹으로 경사 E의 얼굴을 향해 때릴 듯이 수회 휘두르고, 편의점 앞에 있던 플라스틱 의자를 들고 경사 E에게 집어던지려 하고 발로 이를 제지하는 경사 E의 발목을 1회 걷어차는 등 폭행하여 위 경찰관의 112 신고처리 및 현장질서유지 업무에 관한 정당한 직무집행을 방해하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Application of each police protocol of statement to E and F;

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

1. The reason for the sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended sentence [Scope of Recommendation] Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Performance of Official Duties (the Act on the Suspension of Performance of Official Duties) is that there is no basic area (6 to 1 year and 4 months) (the decision of sentencing) (the person who has been sentenced to a special punishment] (the decision of sentencing). Since a police officer who received a report of disturbance and obstructed legitimate performance of official duties by exercising violence against a police officer called out after being so drunk, the crime is not less than that of a fine, but the defendant has no criminal record and wrong are divided. In addition, in full view of all the sentencing conditions as shown in the arguments such as the age, character and behavior, home environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means