A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

피고인은 2015. 3. 13. 00:30경 서귀포시 B에 있는 C약국 앞길에서 대리운전기사 D를 불러 집으로 가던 중 난폭운전을 했다는 이유로 시비되어, 신고를 받고 출동한 서귀포경찰서 E파출소 소속 경사 F으로부터 위 파출소로 임의동행되어 조사를 받던 중, 같은 날 01:10경 서귀포시 G에 있는 위 파출소 입구에서 분이 풀리지 않아 위 D에게 달려드는 것을 위 파출소 소속 경위 H이 막아섰다는 이유로 H을 향해 주먹을 휘두르고 이를 제지하는 위 F의 배를 발로 걷어찼다.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the prevention, suppression and investigation of crimes by police officers in uniform.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to H and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes in written statements prepared D;

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment for the crime: Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Concurrent crimes: the former part of Article 37, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Suspension of execution: The reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the following conditions of sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the statement of the reasons for sentencing), are as follows, taking into account all the sentencing criteria and other circumstances into account:

The favorable circumstances: The facts of the crime are recognized and reflected in all the facts of the crime, and the circumstances that are unfavorable to the fact that there are no criminal records other than the punishment for a single fine due to a drunk driving: The circumstances after the crime, the circumstances after the crime, the occupation, age, character and conduct, family relationship of the defendant [Sentencing] is not the basic area of the obstruction of performance of official duties (6 months to April 1).