However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

피고인은 2016. 3. 15. 20:07 경 구미시 D에 있는 E 물류센터 앞 도로에서 ‘ 택시 손님이 술을 먹고 행패를 부린다’ 는 신고를 받은 구미 경찰서 소속 경장 F으로부터 범칙 통고서를 발부 받자, 이에 불만을 품고 “ 씨 발 놈들 다 죽여 버린다, 씨 발 놈들” 이라고 욕을 하면서 주먹으로 위 F의 가슴을 2회 때리고, 우측 발로 우측 옆구리를 1회 찼으며, 머리를 들이 받은 후, 이를 말리던 같은 경찰서 소속 순경 G의 얼굴을 발로 1회 찼다.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers on the maintenance of order.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to F and G;

1. Reports on internal investigation (related to attaching a copy of a notice for payment of penalty disposed of to the suspect);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes for reporting internal accidents;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of punishment for the crime;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended sentence [the scope of the recommended sentence] and the reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, there is no basic area (from June to one year and four months) (the person subject to special sentencing) [the decision of sentencing] [the defendant has committed this case again despite the fact that he was punished for the same crime (one time of punishment and one time of suspended sentence).

However, in light of the overall circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant is in a profound radius and seems to have committed the instant crime, the punishment shall be determined as ordered in consideration of the overall circumstances.