A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six 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. 7. 22:30경 시흥시 C 2층 D 카페에서, 손님들이 싸운다는 112신고를 받고 현장에 출동하여 신고내용을 확인하는 피해자인 시흥경찰서 E지구대 소속 경장 F에게 CCTV를 확인해 달라고 요청하였으나, 피해자로부터 녹화가 되지 않았다는 말을 듣자, 피해자에게 “네가 한게 뭐있냐”라고 하면서 왼발로 피해자의 오른쪽 정강이를 1회 걷어찼다.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the prevention, suppression and investigation of the victim's crime.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness F and G;

1. The statement of each police officer made to F and G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the H’s written statement;

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The sentencing guidelines for the sentencing of Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the grounds of the suspended sentence are as follows: The range of the sentencing guidelines for the sentencing of Article 62 (1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution [the range of sentence for the obstruction of performance of official duties, the first category (the obstruction of performance of official duties and the mitigation area, the mitigation area, and the period of imprisonment not more than eight months] and the following circumstances are considered: The degree of assault is relatively not serious; the degree of assault is disadvantageous to the fact that there is no record of punishment for the obstruction of official duties: the crime of this case was committed on September 13, 2013 after having been sentenced to two years of the suspended sentence on September 24, 2013; the crime of this case was committed during the suspended sentence period even though the above judgment became final and conclusive: