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

1. 재물 손괴 피고인은 2017. 3. 20. 09:25 경 서울 서초구 서초 중앙로 18 소재 서초 쌍용 플 레 티 넘 지하 주차장 출입구 인근 도로에서, 아무런 이유 없이 그곳에 있던 피해자 C 소유의 재규어 승용차 오른쪽 뒤 펜더 부위를 발로 차 약 5cm 가량 움푹 들어가게 하는 등 위 피해자 소유의 위 승용차에 수리비 미상의 손괴를 가하였다.

2. On March 20, 2017, the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties at the same place as above, and the police officer called out and returned to the scene after receiving a report on the damage of the above property, and the Defendant again reported the 112 report, and subsequently, the Defendant took a bath to investigate the case of the said property damage to E, F, and policeman on the ground that he/she was employed by the Seocho Police Station D police box, and that he/she took a face of the said G, and interfered with the police officer’s legitimate performance of official duties in relation to the prevention, suppression, and investigation of the crime, such as checking the case of the said G video.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. Reports on internal investigation ( omitted in the records of statements made by the victim);

112 Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs by cutting down 112 report processing slips, damaged photographs, and video images;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 136 of the Criminal Act, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (a point of obstructing the performance of official duties), and the selection of fines for a 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. In order to establish the legal order of a country with reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and eradicate public peace, there is a need to strictly punish an offense obstructing the performance of official duties, and the fact that the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of one million won on January 3, 2017 due to assault around January 3, 2017 is disadvantageous.

However, the defendant confessions the crime of this case and repents the wrong facts, and damages the property.