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. 모욕 피고인은 2017. 8. 23. 00:55 경 천안시 서 북구 B, 'C' 호프집에서, 피고인의 여자친구와 업주 사이에 술값 계산 문제로 시비가 있던 중 난동 피우는 사람이 있다는 112 신고를 받고 출동한 천안 서북 경찰서 D 파출소 소속 순경 E가 신고 경위를 확인하고, 112 신고 진행 절차에 대해 설명을 하자 E에게 " 이런 씹 쌔끼들, 좆같네,

짭새 새끼야 "라고 큰소리로 말하여 업주 등이 있는 자리에서 공연히 E를 모욕하였다.

2. On August 23, 2017, the Defendant: (a) at the same place as the above-mentioned “A” around 01:10 on August 23, 2017; (b) at the same time, the sloping F and E were to be arrested as an offender in the crime of insult; (c) strongly refused such arrest; (d) the lower part of the right eye of the slope F; and (e) assaulted the face by taking one hand.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the arrest of police officers in the act of committing a crime.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to F and E;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes of written complaint of E;

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of public duties), Article 311 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor, respectively;

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 grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act include: (a) the nature of the instant crime is not somewhat weak in light of the background of each of the instant crimes and the patterns of conduct; (b) the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence by obstructing the performance of official duties on around 2012; (c) the Defendant was punished by a fine due to the crime of destroying property on around 2017; (d) the Defendant led to the confession and rebuttal of each of the instant crimes; and (e) the Defendant appears to have committed each of the instant crimes by stimulatinging and interesting the police officers’ complaints regarding the method of performing duties reported and dispatched under the influence of alcohol at the time.