A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. On April 28, 2018, from around 04:10 to around 04:30 of the same day, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s restaurant business by failing to take a walk over about 20 minutes by putting the victim C, who was eating at the D cafeteria operated by the victim C, in a large manner, and opening the table on the spot. On the second floor of the above building, the Defendant got the victim to be asked to talk with the victim from the victim who had the above desire of the high nature on the cafeteria and let the restaurant not take a bath any longer, and thereby interfering with the victim’s business by failing to take a bath for about 20 minutes.

2. 공무집행 방해 피고인은 제 1 항과 같은 날 04:35 경 제 1 항 기재 장소에서 위와 같은 이유로 112 신고를 받고 출동한 부산 동래 경찰서 E 파출소 소속 경사 F, 순경 G으로부터 귀가할 것을 권유 받자 갑자기 위 경찰관들에게 삿대질을 하며 “ 니는 뭔 데, 누가 신고를 했노, 개새끼야 ”라고 욕설을 하고, 발로 위 F의 왼쪽 정강이를 찼다.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning 112 reporting handling duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement with respect to C and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on investigation reporting;

1. Relevant Article 136 of the Criminal Act, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties), Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing duties) and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime;

2. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which increases concurrent crimes;

3. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the Suspension of Execution (the fact that there was any past record of punishment several times for the crime of the same kind, but there was no past record of crime exceeding the fine, and the agreement with the victim of the obstruction of duties was reached, taking into account the favorable circumstances that there was no much emphasis on the degree of interference with duties or obstruction of the performance