A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, 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 2016. 6. 7. 01:45경 이천시 B에 있는 C파출소에서, 택시 기사에 대한 폭행사건으로 현행범 체포되어 C파출소로 연행된 뒤 경기이천경찰서 C파출소 소속 경위 피해자 D(51세)이 택시 기사에게 위협적인 욕설을 하고 시비를 거는 피고인을 제지하자, 발로 위 D의 허벅지를 걷어차고, 왼쪽 팔 부위를 2회 걷어찼다.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of the police box D, a police officer.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (an investigation related to victim D's damage part);

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act [Scope of Recommendation] The sentence of the same sentence shall be imposed in consideration of the following: (a) the basic area (6-1-4 months) of the obstruction of performance of official duties; (b) there is no person who has been sentenced to a special punishment (a person who has been sentenced to a sentence] (a person who has been sentenced to a sentence]; (c) the two years of the suspension of the execution of six months and the suspension of the execution of six months

Public Prosecution Rejection Parts

1. On June 7, 2016, the Defendant: (a) committed assault on the front side of the “FT store” located in Ischeon-si E; (b) on the ground that the victim G (age 51) was on board the H taxi of the victim G (age 51) in front of the Leecheon-si, and was at a higher rate than that of the ordinary hall, he saw the victim’s bat; (c) bat the victim’s head on one hand and twice at one hand; and (d) bat the victim’s face on one hand; and (e) bat the victim’s satis.

2. The facts charged in this part of the indictment are cases in which the prosecution cannot be instituted against the clearly expressed will of the victim. According to the records, the victim expressed his/her wish not to prosecute the defendant on September 29, 2016, which was after the prosecution of this case was instituted.