A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

Punishment of the crime

1. 모욕 피고인은 2019. 3. 24. 17:40경 청주시 흥덕구 B시장 내 C가 운영하는 ‘D’에서 술을 마시고 고성을 지르며 소란을 피우다가 112신고를 받고 출동한 청주흥덕경찰서 소속 경위 E, 경장 F이 제지하자 주위 상인들이 듣고 있는 가운데 피해자인 위 E을 향해 손가락의 중지를 펴 보이며 “퍽유(fuck you)”, “좆도 아닌 씨발놈아!”라고 말하여 공연히 위 E을 모욕하였다.

2. The Defendant, at the same date, at the same time and place as the preceding paragraph, received the foregoing E/F’s restraint and continued to take a bath after moving to the “G” in the above market, and notified that the above E can be arrested as a crime of insult, “In order to arrest, the Defendant arrested him/her, whether the police officer would do so, and whether he/she would have bitched bitch, not a bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch, and received it, when he/she faces the face of the above E once.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the maintenance of police officers' order and legitimate execution of duties concerning criminal investigations.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Arrest reports of suspected victims of obstruction of the performance of official duties, investigation reports (Attachment to a report of 112 cases) and attachment of a list of cases of 112 reported cases, and investigation reports;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Articles 136 (1) and 311 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of punishment, and imprisonment with prison labor;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion regarding the instant crime under the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2, and 50 of the Criminal Act were asserted to the effect that they are not liable since the Defendant and his defense counsel committed the instant crime. However, in light of the circumstances before and after the instant crime, circumstances leading to the instant crime, and the Defendant’s conduct, etc. acknowledged by the evidence, the Defendant did not appear to have the ability to discern things at the time of the instant crime, and further, the Defendant did not have the ability to discern