A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

피고인은 2018. 1. 28. 01:20 경 김해시 B 아파트 1209동 105호에서, 피고인이 소란을 피운다는 내용의 112 신고를 받고 출동한 김해서 부 경찰서 C 지구대 소속 경찰 관인 순경 D으로부터 퇴거를 요구 받자 화가 나, 이로 D의 오른쪽 팔과 왼손 검지 손가락을 깨물고, 계속해서 손으로 D의 머리를 때리고, 발로 D의 가슴을 수회 걷어찼다.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning 112 report handling duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. An investigation report (locating the details of the case of the other reporter);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs damaged;

1. Relevant Article 136 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

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

1. The basic area (referring to six months to one year and four months) of the sentencing criteria [the scope of the recommended punishment] that interferes with the performance of public duties; and

2. When a police officer, who was called out after receiving 112 report at the house of a person under influence of alcohol, solicits him/her to move out and return home, the defendant, who was sentenced to a sentence, obstructed the legitimate execution of official duties by assaulting the police officer's arms and fingers, and thus, the crime is not good in light of the details thereof and the method thereof.

Moreover, the Defendant had a record of being punished twice due to the obstruction of the performance of official duties, and there was a record of 112 reported and sent to police officers who received 112 prior to one year.

However, the defendant reflects his fault in depth.

It seems to be a crime that has lost self-control power in a timely manner and has committed contingently.

The degree of damage is not much serious.

Before the above, the previous convictions had been sentenced to a fine, which was about 10 years prior to the previous conviction of interference with the execution of official duties.

Until now, the fact that there has been no criminal records over the suspension of execution can be considered as favorable circumstances.