If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

1. Around March 19, 2017, around 03:53, the Defendant obstructed the performance of official duties came to the first place of the Seoul East-gu Police Station located in approximately 21-gil 29, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, Seoul (Cheongyang-dong). Around March 19, 2017, on the ground that there was a complaint in the 112 report processing, the Defendant saw the instant police station’s member B, who is a member of the said police station, who works in the first place in the first place in the first place in the first place in the first place in the second place in the second place in the second place in the second place in the second place in the second place with the desire of “C

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of official duties for B's office building expenses.

2. The Defendant: (a) committed the act of obstructing the performance of official duties at the time, place, and at the time, place specified in the preceding paragraph; and (b) caused the Defendant to incur repair costs of KRW 80,000 by putting the finger hand over the water purifiers installed therein through the windows in the said portrait and cutting the water purifiers installed therein.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged public goods.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Application of CCTV Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties), Article 141(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of damaging goods for public use) and the selection of fines for the 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. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the Aggravated Punishment of the Aggravated Punishment Order for the crime of this case is that the defendant, who was dispatched to the scene by the defendant's report, had been working in the beginning of a fake and fake salking where the defendant directly found his appeal to the police station.

B In the course of attacking B, obstructing the performance of official duties, and intending to enter the portrait of a written statement without permission, it damages public goods. In light of the background and content of the crime, etc., the issue is not less complicated, and the Defendant has the record of punishment of each fine as a crime of violence around 2000, as a crime of damaging public goods around 2005, and on the other hand, the Defendant led to confession and reflect on each of the crimes of this case.