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

The Defendant, at around 05:55 on June 28, 2013, without any justifiable reason, on the front side of the “Cagle” located in Haju-si B.

In order to extinguish fire that occurred in the fire room, the chief fire officer dispatched to the fire officer belonging to the fire station, and the fire officer belonging to the fire station belonging to the above fire station who spreads water to the fire site of the fire station due to a fire fighting sprink, the head of the above fire station spons the above spons by hand, and the fire officer belonging to the above fire station who connected the spons to the fire pumps for water supply support spons spons the left part of the above spons by drinking, without any reason.

As a result, the defendant interfered with extinguishing fire, and at the same time interfered with legitimate execution of duties of fire fighters.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of each police protocol of statement to D and E;

1. Article 169 of the Criminal Act and 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 Concurrent Crimes;

1. Suspension of execution under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (including the fact that the defendant reflects the mistakes and that the defendant has no criminal record exceeding the fine);

1. Social service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;