A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

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

Punishment of the crime

피고인은 2019. 9. 18. 01:43경 서울 서초구 남부순환로 2584에 있는 서초구청 앞 노상에서, 피고인이 이용한 택시의 기사와 시비가 되어 위 택시 기사의 “승객이 술에 취하여 말이 통하지 않는다”는 112신고를 받고 현장에 출동한 서울서초경찰서 B파출소 소속 경장 C으로부터 택시비를 지급한 후 귀가할 것을 권유받자, 이에 화가 나 “아이 씹할!”이라는 등으로 욕설을 하며 손으로 위 C의 왼쪽 귓불 부위를 1회 때렸다.

Accordingly, the defendant assaulted the above C and interfered with the police officer's performance of duties concerning the prevention, suppression and investigation of the crime.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of a DNA-camp video CD-related statute;

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

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

1. Scope of punishment by law: One to five years of imprisonment;

2. The scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines [decision of types] of the obstruction of performance of official duties: [Type 1] No person shall be subject to the obstruction of performance of official duties or coercion of official duties [the scope of recommended areas and recommendations] (the scope of recommended areas and recommendations] basic area, six months to one year and six months.

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for eight months or two years under a suspended sentence is not likely to obstruct the execution of official duties by assaulting a taxi engineer or a police officer dispatched to the police station;

However, the sentencing conditions prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and consequence of the crime, etc., shall be determined as ordered by taking into account the following factors: (a) there is no criminal punishment; (b) the Defendant reflects the Defendant’s depth of the crime; (c) the Defendant appears to have committed the crime of this case by taking advantage of the Defendant’s perception