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

피고인은 2020. 8. 28. 20:48경 서울 강남구 B 앞길에서 ‘술에 취한 사람이 길에 쓰러져 있다’는 피고인의 여자친구 C의 112 전화신고를 받고 출동한 D지구대 소속 E 경위로부터 위 C에게 접근하지 말고 귀가할 것을 권유받자 화가 나, 손으로 E의 멱살을 잡아 흔들고 “참견하지 말랬지. 개새끼들아. 니들이 경찰이야. 이 짭새 새끼야. 씨발놈아”라고 욕설하며 손으로 E의 가슴 부분을 3회 밀어 폭행하였다.

As a result, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (to hear statements by police officers dispatched to the scene together with the victim);

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 136 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is that the defendant, upon receiving a report from 112, committed an assault against the police officer who called out on the ground of the suspension of execution without any justifiable reason. The nature of the offense is not good and it was not taken by the victimized police officer.

However, considering favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant confessions all of the crimes and reflects the crimes, the violence committed to the police officer is not visible to a considerable extent, and the fact that it is an initial offender who has not been subject to criminal punishment before criminal punishment, etc.

The punishment as ordered shall be determined in consideration of the following circumstances, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, means and result of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime.