A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six 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

피고인은 2017. 5. 21. 00:55 경 경남 고성군 B에 있는 C 식당 앞 도로에서, 길에 쓰러져 자고 있는 주취자가 있다는 112 신고를 받고 현장 출동한 고성 경찰서 D 지구대 소속 경찰관 경위 E, 순경 F가 자고 있는 피고인을 깨워 귀가 하라고 한 후 순찰차에 탑승하자, 순찰차 쪽으로 걸어와 위 경찰관에게 “ 씨 발 놈들 아, 개새끼들 아, 지랄하지 마라” 고 욕설을 하여 순경 F가 다시 피고인에게 귀가를 권유하기 위해 순찰차에서 내리자, 욕설을 하면서 양손으로 순경 F의 멱살을 잡아 흔들며 땅바닥에 넘어뜨리고, 발로 이를 말리는 경위 E의 왼쪽 무릎을 1회 걷어찼다.

As above, the Defendant interfered with legitimate performance of duties concerning the handling of reported case by E, police officer E, and police officer F. F.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police statement made to F and E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (damage photographs), investigation reports (Attachment of photographs on the upper part of the victim), investigation reports (Attachment of the list of cases to be reported), investigation reports (Attachment of the list of cases to be reported), and investigation reports (related to the confirmation of video images of CCTV control center in high-level military);

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion of Article 62(1) of the suspended sentence under the Criminal Act, the Defendant alleged to the effect that he was in a state of mental, physical, or mental or physical loss due to the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime. In light of the overall circumstances, such as the background, means and method of the instant crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime, etc., the Defendant was in a state that he did not have the ability to discern things

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing is a matter of unfair infringement of police officers' legitimate execution of official duties.