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

1. On October 16, 2017, at around 18:50 on 16, 2017, the Defendant damaged the property by gathering lottery tickets from E operated by the victim D (47 cm) who was in W, with employees and payment, and gathering two monitors of electronic calculator, pension ticket display stand, monitor 2 devices, and cutting down earth and sand labbing and cutting off a customer’s glass and destroying it beyond the wind.

Accordingly, the Defendant damaged the property owned by others, the market price of which is unknown.

2. The Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties at around 18:55 on October 16, 2017, where “the drinking person spawns with his/her pedago and shoulders his/her store at the same place.”

“A” check the scene by a slope G belonging to the Facs of the Net Police Station, which was dispatched to the site after receiving a report 112, and the Defendant “Isson due to his son, Isday to the hospital.”

"I am, I am, I ame, I ame, I ame, I ame, I ame, I ame, I ame, I ame, I ame, I ame, I ame, I am a part of I ame G with a bad hand.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police statement made to D or G;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. Relevant Article 136 of the Criminal Act, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties), Article 366 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for each crime;

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. The sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution shall be based on the following factors: (a) the criminal records of the defendant, the nature of the crime in this case, the background leading to the crime in this case, the victim D’s desire to take prior action against the defendant; and (b) the health status of the defendant, and other various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and the theory of changes in the sentence.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.