When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

1. On July 11, 2018, the Defendant: (a) around 23:20 on July 11, 2018, the Defendant destroyed the driver’s seat door, etc. so that the Defendant 981,946 won of the repair cost of 981,946 won can be seen as a fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s car

2. On July 11, 2018, the Defendant: (a) arrested a flagrant offender with a suspicion of damaging property as above; (b) transported the patrol car to F District of the police station in the Kim Sea-Jon Kim Sea-Jon Kim Sea-Jon in Kim Sea-Jon; (c) taken the patrol car at the patrol car; (d) taken a bath at the patrol car; (c) taken the chin of G in the region belonging to the said patrol district as head; and (d) took a bath at the head; and (d) took a bath to the said district belt as “C typia, kin,” and used the head part of G as head.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to D or G;

1. Written estimate;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of damaged vehicles;

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 selection of fines for a 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. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. In order to establish the legal order of the country with which the sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act was based on the order of provisional payment and to eradicate the light of the public authority, it is necessary to impose severe punishment on the crime of interference with the execution of official duties. However, the defendant is the first offender who has no criminal history, and the defendant is deemed to have committed each of the crimes in this case contingently, and the degree of damage incurred therefrom and the degree of interference with official duties is not emphasized, and the victim D and the victim police officers G have agreed smoothly with the victim D and the victim police officers, and the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive for the crime.