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

피고인은 2019. 5. 14. 23:30경 천안시 서북구 B아파트 정문 앞 노상에서, 112신고를 받고 출동하여 피고인의 차량을 운전하였던 대리기사인 C으로부터 사건 경위에 대한 진술을 청취하고 있는 천안서북경찰서 D지구대 소속 경찰관인 경장 E에게 "시팔, 나이도 어린것이 저리 가"라고 욕설을 하며 다가가 오른손을 들며 때리려는 시늉을 하고 양손으로 위 E의 가슴을 밀고 어깨를 잡아 밀어 바닥으로 넘어뜨리는 등 폭행하여 경찰공무원의 112 신고처리에 관한 정당한 직무집행을 방해하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. C’s self-written statement;

1. Case photographs;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing the D District Work Place;

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime. Article 136 (Selection of Imprisonment or Imprisonment);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Probation and community service order Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act acknowledges and reflects the defendant's wrong reasons for sentencing, and there is no record of punishment heavier than the suspension of the execution of imprisonment. The crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is an offense that undermines the function of the State by nullifying the legitimate exercise of public authority and thus, requires strict punishment. The method of assault in this case and the number of police officers subject to the crime, other methods of assault in this case, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, and other various sentencing conditions specified