However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

(e).

1. On April 22, 2016, at around 05:10, the Defendant damaged the wall by putting a physical disease on the cafeteria B (37) on the wall side of the calculating unit, under the influence of alcohol, at “D” restaurant operated by the victim C (37) located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, along with his/her own punishment, and putting it on the wall so that the water disease on the cafeteria B, which was on the cafeteria B, can amount to repair costs.

2. The Defendant interfered with his duties, at the same time and place as Paragraph 1, interfered with the victim C’s restaurant operation work, such as avoiding a disturbance of approximately 30 minutes and a disturbance.

3. The Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties at the same time, place as set forth in paragraph 1, and at the same time and place as set forth in paragraph 1, who was dispatched to the site after being reported to the scene by F, the police box affiliated with the police box of the Seoul Gangnam Police Station E (Seoul), was questioned by F, on his hand, twice at the same time and without any reason.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. G and C’s written statement is that the Defendant did not memory under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime

I asserts to the effect that he was in a state of mental or physical loss or mental weakness.

The records show that the defendant had drinking alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, but it does not seem that the defendant had no or weak ability to discern things due to the fact that he had drinking alcohol at the time of the crime of this case. Thus, the above assertion is rejected.

[Application of Acts and subordinate statutes]

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties), Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing duties), Article 366 of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing duties), and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for the 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. Although the reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act does not include the defendant's liability for the reason of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, the confession and reflect of the crime, and the victim C.