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

1. On October 1, 2019, at around 03:35, the Defendant damaged the property by making D’s demand for payment of taxi charges on the front of the “Cstore” road located in Ssung City B, thereby damaging the property that is equivalent to KRW 68,831,00 for the next 68,831, on two occasions, the front door of the Fsi owned by the victim E.

2. 공무집행방해 피고인은 2019. 10. 1. 03:40경 제1항 기재 장소에서 “손님이 요금을 안주고, 차를 발로 차고 난리다, 남자 1명”이라는 112신고를 받고 출동한 화성서부경찰서 G지구대 소속 경사 H가 잠들어 있는 자신을 깨우고 택시에서 하차할 것을 요구하자 화가 나 “씨발 새끼야”라고 욕설을 하며, 발로 H의 복부를 1회 걷어찼다.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Relevant statutory provisions Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment for a crime

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. In light of the reasoning, attitude, etc. of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act, it is not good to commit a crime, and the defendant has been punished for violent crimes, and the risk of recidivism is also likely to occur several times.

The defendant did not reach an agreement with victim D or victim police officers.

Therefore, the defendant requires a strict warning.

However, considering the fact that the defendant's mistake is recognized and reflected, there is no record of punishment for obstruction of performance of official duties, and the defendant's age, character, behavior, career, environment, circumstances and results of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, the punishment shall be determined as ordered.