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

1. The Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties on April 19, 2018, at the street in front of the Seoul Southernbuk-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, and at around 20:30, the Defendant was forced from the police box C of the Seoul Gangnam-gu Police Station C, who was dispatched after receiving a report of 112, to undergo a disturbance by raising trial expenses, etc. from the police box D belonging to the police box belonging to the Seoul Gangnam-gu, Gangnam Police Station C, who was called out after receiving a report of 112, then the Defendant “

Korea-U.S. D. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L.C.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of reports by police officers.

2. The Defendant damaged public goods within a police box located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, in around 21:10 on the same day, and during the arrest of the Defendant in the act of committing a crime, “ponp cleaner” is good.

more.

It has been fluently and well-beingd.

“Isk the disturbance stop and sits from F of the border where Iskn't see it with ‘Isk', etc.’.

In the event of hearing the word “,” the said keyboard was damaged so that the said keyboard fell into repair costs by pushing the computer monitors in the books of the said F.

Accordingly, the Defendant damaged the goods used by public offices.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. G statements;

1. Photographss of supporting groups at the bottom of the KIKO of damaged products;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties) concerning criminal facts, Article 141(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of damaging goods for public use) and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor;

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. The defendant was under the influence of alcohol for the reason of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act;

Thus, this cannot be applied favorably to the sentencing.

There is a criminal punishment for violence-related crimes.

However, the defendant is in depth against the defendant when committing the crime of this case.

In this case, the fine has been imposed on a contingent basis.