A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

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

Criminal facts

피고인은 2019. 3. 15. 01:45경 서울 강동구 B에 있는 피고인의 주거지에서, ‘밑에 집이 시끄럽다’는 취지의 2차례 112신고를 받고 현장에 출동한 경찰관으로부터 주의를 받고 난 뒤 다시 ‘싸움소리가 들린다, 방금 철문 부수는 소리 들림’이라는 112신고를 받고 현장에 출동한 서울강동경찰서 C지구대 소속 경위 D으로부터 소란한 이유를 질문 받는데 화가 나 신고자가 누구냐고 소리를 지르며 신발과 쓰레기봉투를 바닥에 집어던지고 이를 제지하던 경위 D의 오른쪽 허벅지를 발로 1회 걷어찼다.

As a result, the defendant assaulted police officers to interfere with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers in relation to the 112 Report Handling.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (verification of the 112 Reporting Case List);

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as the "justifiable circumstances") of the suspended sentence;

1. Scope of recommendations according to the sentencing guidelines (decision of type), the category of obstruction of performance of official duties, the obstruction of performance of official duties, and the category 1 (Special Aggravation of Punishment): Where the degree of violence is insignificant (the scope of recommendations): Not more than eight months;

2. The defendant who has been sentenced to a sentence shall assault a victimized police officer in the course of performing his/her duties and interfere with his/her legitimate execution of duties, and the liability for such crime is not minor;

In addition, even though the Defendant did not commit the same crime as the instant case, even though he had been subject to criminal punishment due to violent crime during that period, recidivism was committed several times.

However, it is advantageous to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case, the degree of violence was not much serious, and the fact that there was no record of punishment for obstruction of performance of official duties.