A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

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

Punishment of the crime

피고인은 2018. 1. 21. 00:30 경 울산 중구 C 앞길에서 “ 어떤 사람이 지나가는 사람들에게 시비를 건다” 라는 내용의 112 신고를 받고 현장에 출동한 울산 중부 경찰서 D 지구대 소속 경위 E과 순경 F으로부터 귀가를 권유 받자 화가 나, " 순찰차로 태워 달라! 야 이 씨 발 새끼야, 내가 뭘 잘못했는데! 잡아가라 개새끼야! "라고 욕설을 하고, 위 E이 몸에 차고 있던 테이저건을 잡아당기고, 가슴 부위를 손등으로 3회 때리고, 이를 제지하는 위 F의 배 부위를 오른 주먹으로 3회 때리는 등 폭행하였다.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to E and F;

1. G statements;

1. A criminal investigation report (CCTV image analysis report);

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes of photographic images on the victim;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment.

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (see, e.g., “reasons for sentencing” as follows)

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order [the scope of punishment according to the sentencing guidelines] The mitigated area of special mitigation (the obstruction of performance of official duties and the coercion of duties) shall be limited to the mitigated area: in the event that the degree of intimidation, deceptive scheme, or obstruction of public duties is minor, the scope of the statutory mitigation area: one month to five years [the decision of sentencing] of imprisonment in this case is not good in light of the method and attitude of the crime in this case; the defendant was sentenced to a fine on June 2003; the defendant was sentenced to a violation of the performance of official duties of the same kind; the defendant committed the crime in this case even though there was a history of punishment several times, the crime in this case is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the defendant's mistake is recognized and depthed.