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

피고인은 2018. 7. 24. 01:50경 서울 성북구 동소문로 248 길음역 5번 출구 앞길에서 택시 기사와 요금 문제로 시비를 하다가 112 신고를 받고 출동한 서울종암경찰서 B지구대 소속 경위 C이 피고인에게 택시요금을 지불하고 귀가하도록 안내한 후 순찰차에 탑승하려 하자 그 뒤를 따라 가 C에게 “씨팔 좃 같은 새끼. 너 가만 안 둔다.”라고 욕설을 하면서 주먹을 2회 휘두르고, 계속해서 배로 C을 밀고 주먹을 휘두르고 손으로 C을 밀쳐 순찰차에 부딪히게 하는 등 폭행하였다.

In this way, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. C’s legal statement;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant used violence against C, as described in the facts charged, in light of the following: (a) a cell phone closure photograph and a cell phone image CD (a cell phone closure); (b) the defendant and his defense counsel displayed a drinking twice at the time of the instant case; (c) he did not tight memory; and (d) he did not commit an intentional act of assault against C only when he was faced with a drinking water in the process of de factoing the cell phone. However, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, in particular, after being dispatched to the site after receiving 112 report, and after being dispatched to the site, the defendant used violence against C, as stated in the facts charged, by the police officer’s statement in this court, etc., which specifically states the progress of the case and the contents of the Defendant’s use of violence. The defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion cannot be accepted).

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Type 1 (Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties and Compelling of Duties) shall apply to the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing criteria;