A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six 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 2015. 4. 7. 14:15경 서울 종로구 B에 있는 C가 운영하는 ‘D’ 식당 앞 노상에서 위 C와 음식대금 문제로 실랑이하던 중 112신고를 받고 출동한 서울종로경찰서 E파출소 소속 경찰관 F(55세)으로부터 사기의 현행범인으로 체포하겠다는 말을 듣자 이에 화가 나 “짭새야, 내가 잘못이 있느냐!”라고 욕설하며 위 F의 멱살을 2회 잡아 밀쳐 그의 상의 단추를 뜯는 등 폭행하였다.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of the above F F's 112 reporting duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to F and C;

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

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. The scope of applicable sentences by law: one month to five years; and

2. Where the sentencing guidelines (the scope of recommending punishment on July 1, 2015) apply (the scope of recommending punishment) are minor as the mitigation area (one month or August), mitigation area (special mitigation person), assault, intimidation, and deceptive means are minor;

3. The Defendant, who was sentenced to punishment for the crime of obstruction of performance of the same duties, committed an assault by a police officer upon receiving a report even though he had a record of punishment for a fine for the crime of obstruction of the performance of the same duties, shall be sentenced to punishment as ordered by the order, taking into account all the sentencing factors indicated in the records of the instant case, such as the background and form of the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime was committed, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.