A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On July 11, 2018, around 23:48, the Defendant damaged property, on the front of the C apartment in the Gyeonggi-si where the victim B resides, the Defendant was able to knife and knife without any reason under the influence of alcohol.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the loss owned by the victim who could not know the market price.

2. 공무집행 방해 피고인은 위와 같은 날 23:51 경 같은 장소에서 고성을 지르며 소란을 피우던 중, 술에 취하여 문을 두드리는 사람이 있는 112 신고를 받고 출동한 경기 파주 경찰서 D 파출소 소속 경위 E과 순경 F이 피고인을 향하여 다가가자 화가 나 “ 오지 마 짭새새끼야, 잡아갈 수 있으면 잡아가 ”라고 소리치며 소화기를 들어 위 E 과 위 F을 향하여 분사하는 등 폭행하였다.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers in relation to the handling of reports and criminal investigations.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. B written statements;

1. Report on internal investigation (victim B and telephone communications);

1. 112 A list of reported cases;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the scene and photographs of damaged articles;

1. Article 366 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties);

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of ordinary concurrent crimes (limited to cases where a person interferes with the execution of official duties);

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act is about 15 years, but there is only one history of punishment for interference with the performance of official duties. Nevertheless, the same crime of this case was committed again, the damage to property was not restored, etc. under unfavorable circumstances, such as the fact that the crime is led to confession of and reflect against the crime, and the fact that the physical damage of the victimized police officers was not excessive, etc., shall be considered as favorable circumstances.