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

피고인은 2017. 8. 18. 02:00 경 울산 남구 C에 있는 ‘D 편의점’ 앞 도로에서 ‘ 사람이 평상 앞에 누워 있는데, 술을 드신 것 같다’ 는 112 신고를 받고 현장에서 출동한 울산 남부 경찰서 E 지구대 소속 경찰 관인 순경 F으로부터 귀가할 것을 수차례 권유 받았음에도, 위 순경 F에게 “ 나는 짭새가 싫다, 씨 발 새끼들 아, 니들이 진짜 경찰이 맞냐,

Mabal Police

“A person who wishess to take a large sound, assaulted F’s face at one time, etc. in his/her hand.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of the law of the police statement protocol to F;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the Suspension of Execution (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (In full view of the gravity of infringement on legal interest, existence of violent crimes, etc., of the crime committed by the crime obstructing the performance of public duties, but, in addition, taking into account various circumstances, such as the background of

1. The community service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;