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

1. On May 22, 2014, at around 02:40 on May 2, 2014, the Defendant: (a) heard that, under the influence of alcohol in front of the Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu, a drunk customer did not pay a taxi fee; and (b) he paid a taxi fee from the horse located in the Seoul Mapo-gu Police Station D District of the Seoul Mapo-gu Police Station that sent out after having received 112 notice that he would return home, “whether he would be paid a taxi fee; (c) she will not be paid a taxi fee; (d) she will take a bath, she will do so; and (e) she will take the face of she can take off; and (e) interfere with a police official’s legitimate performance of duties concerning the handling of reported cases 112 cases.

2. The Defendant damaged another’s property by taking advantage of the following facts: (a) the Defendant, at the same time and place as Paragraph (1) and at the same time and at a place, in order to increase the criminal intent of the Defendant interfering with the performance of official duties as above; (b) the policeman F, who was affiliated with the D District, taken video pictures with his own smartphones; and (c) cutting off the cell phone by

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. Each police statement concerning E and F;

1. G statements;

1. Each report on investigation;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 136 (1) and 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of criminal facts;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act to increase concurrent crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following circumstances, etc. considered as the reasons for sentencing):

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Social Service Order Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc. [Scope of Recommendation] The sentencing criteria for the crime of the obstruction of performance of official duties are not applied in the case of the crime of the destruction of property where there is no basic area (6 to 1 year and 4 months) (6 to 1 year) of the obstruction of performance of official duties. The sentencing criteria for the crime of the obstruction of official duties of the defendant are not applicable because there is no sentencing criteria.

The defendant has no record of the same obstruction of performance of official duties.