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

1. On December 27, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 21:55, the Defendant: (b) posted a 301 entrance door to communicate with the residents of the said officetel 301, which was in dispute with the noise of the floor from the 3rd floor of Ctel, the Defendant’s residence located in B, Nam-do, Nam-do; (c) but (d) caused damage to the Plaintiff, who was in front of the entrance, by opening a door, caused the 301 door door door door door to a string of the Chinese house delivery error in the market value, which is the victim D’s ownership in front of the entrance.

2. The Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties at the above date, time, and place as seen above, and on the same reason, the Defendant asked the Defendant for the circumstances of the instant case by the police officer F belonging to the E District Police Station, which was called out after receiving a report from 112, and then called out.

“In doing so, the 112 police officer’s lawful performance of duties was obstructed by assaulting the flaps of the police officer by booming the flaps, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of the law of the police statement protocol to F;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties, the choice of imprisonment), and Article 366 of the Criminal Act (the point of destroying property and the choice of imprisonment);

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. It is so decided as per Disposition on the grounds of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act or more;