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 became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

피고인은 2015. 7. 23. 13:30경 충북 단양군 C에 있는 D 입구 앞 도로에서, 그 곳에 불법 주차를 해 둔 피고인 소유의 분뇨처리 특수차인 E 복사바큠카가 단양경찰서 F 소속 경위 피해자 G으로부터 주차 단속을 당하게 되자, 해병전우회 단양지회 소속 H 등 다수인이 있는 가운데, 피해자에게 다가가 “무슨 주차 단속이냐, 단속하면 이곳에 계속 차를 세워놓겠다”라고 시비를 걸고, 손으로 피해자의 옆구리를 2~3회 툭툭 치며, 주먹을 치켜들어 때리려는 듯 위협을 하고, “이걸 확! 개 값 물어주기 싫어 참는다. 개새끼”라고 욕설을 하는 등 약 10분간 소란을 피웠다.

Accordingly, the Defendant assaulted the victim, who is a police officer performing legitimate duties, and insultd the victim openly.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of G and H;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on the designation table for traffic areas;

1. Relevant Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 311 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts (the point of obstructing performance of official duties and the choice of imprisonment), the choice of punishment (the point of insult and the choice of imprisonment);

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [the aggravation of concurrent crimes with the punishment heavier than that of obstruction of performance of official duties (within the scope of the sum of the lengths of each of the above crimes)];

1. The act of obstructing the performance of official duties, such as assaulting a police officer on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the conditions favorable to the reasons of sentencing below), by which the defendant on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the suspended sentence, is disadvantageous to the defendant, and the necessity of the punishment is high. The fact that the defendant led to the confession of the crime of this case and reflects against the defendant, and that there is no previous conviction within

In addition to the above circumstances, all the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case are considered as ordered.