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

피고인은 2016. 1. 23. 21:00 경 대구 북구 B 후문에 있는 C 편의점 앞길에서 교통사고가 발생하였다는 112 신고를 받고 현장에 출동한 대구 북부 경찰서 D 지구대 소속 경위 E, 경위 F가 신고 자로부터 신고 경위를 청취하고 있는 것을 보고 다가와 " 야 이 짭새들아, 아무것도 아닌 사고를 뭐 그리 처리 하나, 내가 알아서 처리한다, 짭새 새끼들아! 늙은 것이 "라고 욕설을 하면서 E을 향해 주먹을 쥐고 얼굴을 때릴 듯이 위협하고, 계속하여 F의 가슴을 두 손으로 밀어 폭행하였다.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officials in relation to 112 reporting affairs.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to E and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (limited to work logs and copies of public officials' certificates);

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. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The conditions in favor of the following two-way reasons);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act for the observation of protection and observation [the scope of the recommended sentence] There is no person [the person subject to special sentencing] in the basic area (six months to one year and four months) [the person subject to special sentencing] [the decision of sentence] of this case is a crime that interferes with the execution of official duties by committing a defluence and assault against the police officer who has conducted the accident dealing with a traffic accident not directly related to the defendant himself/herself, and the police officer called out to the police officer suffered a large mental pain as well as physical damage.

All of the police officers of this case wanted to punish the defendant.

Moreover, the defendant not only has been punished several times due to violence-related crimes or violations of the Management of Local Mental Medicines Act, but also has the same contents as this case.