When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

1. The Defendant causing property damage, around 01:55 on 15, 2015, was the victim F (ma, 55 years of age) and vision, a shipowner, as a matter of the fact that the Defendant, in the 'Eju store located in Gwangju-gu, Gwangju-dong, hereinafter referred to as the 'Eju store', drinking together with drinking while drinking together with drinking.

Accordingly, the Defendant has damaged the equipment of fingerprinting the above fingerprints to reflect repair costs by breaking the fingerprint distinguishingr in front of the calculation unit with the bones of squeebral body, and destroying the squeebral body for fingerprinting.

2. The Defendant’s obstruction of performance of official duties on the same day: (a) based on the following evidence: (b) the police officers belonging to the G District District in the Gwangju Dong-dong Police Station G District of Gwangju Dong-dong Police Station, who called the site after receiving a report of 112 that the customer frights to fright at around 02:10 on the same day; and (c) the content of

In the course of performing a bath, etc., the above H's upper part was fleeped once due to the satisfaction of the site, and the H's arms were cut off and obstructed police officers' legitimate public duties concerning the investigation into crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement related H;

1. A written statement;

1. Investigation reports (Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties, etc.);

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 366 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. Selection of each alternative fine for punishment;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes for the crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties heavier than punishment);

1. The Defendant, on the grounds of the sentencing of Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, committed these crimes again even though he/she had a record of being punished due to assault, etc.

However, it is against the defendant's confession of the crime of this case and there is a child who must support the defendant, the fact that the inside of the crime of this case seems to have been actually correct, the fact that the defendant agreed with the victim F, and the degree of assault exercised against the police officer.