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

피고인은 2016. 7. 14. 04:20경 제주시 B에 있는, C주유소 앞 노상에서 ‘여성 주취자가 있다’는 112신고를 받고 현장에 출동한 제주동부경찰서 D지구대 소속 순경 E, 순경 F이 피고인에게 안전한 장소로 이동하도록 요구한다는 이유로, 술에 취해 “누가 112에 신고했냐, 몇 시 몇 분 몇 초에 했냐.”라고 시비를 걸면서 경찰관의 앞을 가로막고 “너네 다 짤리고 싶냐, 경찰과 검찰에 아는 사람이 있다”라고 소란을 피우며 이를 촬영하는 순경 E을 향해 자신의 휴대전화를 던지고 위 E의 손을 자신의 손으로 쳐서 E이 들고 있던 휴대전화를 바닥에 떨어트리고 이를 말리는 순경 F의 오른쪽 허벅지를 발로 1회 걷어찼다.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officials on the protection of the people's body.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement to F and E;

1. A report on investigation;

1. Application of investigation reports (Attachment of pan-video CDs), CDs (dynamic images), and statutes;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime concerned;

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

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as “consceptive circumstances”) of the suspended sentence is that the Defendant committed the instant crime by gathering mobile phones toward the victimized police officers, and by directly assaulting the body of other victimized police officers. In order to establish the national legal order and eradicate the light of the public authority, it is necessary to strictly punish the crime against the public authority, such as obstruction of performance of official duties.

However, the defendant recognized the crime of this case, the defendant had no record of crime other than the punishment of a fine for property damage in 2014, and the sentencing examples in similar cases, the age, character and conduct, environment, and the damage of the defendant.