If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

1. On March 31, 2017, the Defendant attempted to destroy property, on the roads of D offices located in Kimhae-si, Kimhae-si, and on the roads of D offices located in Kimhae-si, the victim F, the driver of a sports vehicle in E in alcohol, had a horn. However, the Defendant attempted to remove the part of the driver’s seat of the vehicle one time to walk, but failed to reach the extent of undermining the utility of the vehicle, and did so.

2. On April 1, 2017, the Defendant: (a) reported the instant case, and was investigated in the H District located in G in G in G in Kimhae-si on April 1, 2017; (b) expressed that “I (36) a slope belonging to the police station H District in the Kim Sea, which has the right to make a settlement with the said F, is “I (36) of the F, I (36). I (36)” and assault I’s chest in both hands.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to I and F;

1. 112 A list of reported cases;

1. Application of course photographs and vehicle photographs-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 371 of the Criminal Act, Articles 371 and 366 of the Criminal Act ( point of attempted damage to property), Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act ( point of obstructing the performance of official duties), and selection of fines 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. The reasons for sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, which are favorable to the defendant, include: (a) the fact that the defendant repents his wrongness in depth; (b) there are some circumstances to consider the motive and background leading to each of the instant crimes; (c) there are no other criminal records except that the defendant has been punished once by a fine in around 1983; and (d) the fact that the defendant agreed with the victim of the attempted crime resulting from the destruction of property.

On the other hand, the obstruction of the performance of official duties not only interferes with the function of the state's legal order by nullifying legitimate exercise of public authority, but also is related to the excessive safety of the general public.