재물손괴등
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
. C. The door was put up in order to resist mobile phone inundation noise before the front door of C 106, but the door was not opened, and the door was sent up to a small network with the door door of 106,00 won and damaged the repair cost of KRW 480,00.
2. On April 29, 2014, at around 04:50 on April 29, 2014, the Defendant obstructed the Defendant’s legitimate performance of duties regarding the handling of 112 reported by a police officer, as he heard the horses that he would cause the release of his goods from the border E belonging to the Seoul Mapo Police Station D Zone D District of Seoul Mapo Police Station, which was called out after receiving a report on the damage of property at the place indicated in the preceding paragraph.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. Statement of each police statement of B and E;
1. On-site photographs;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on seizure records and list of seizure;
1. Relevant Articles 366 of the Criminal Act, Articles 144(1) and 136(1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of imprisonment with prison labor, respectively;
1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;
1. Reasons for the sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Code of the Suspension of Execution [Scope of Recommendation] The basic area of obstruction of performance of official duties (fence of performance of official duties/performance of official duties) (fence of June-1 April) * The sentencing criteria is not set as to the crime of causing property damage (fence of sentence] (fence of sentence). The crime of this case, which, upon receiving the report, destroyed the entrance door using a watch, and thereby interfered with the legitimate execution of official duties by displaying the watch toward the police officer called out upon receiving the report, is not less than that of the crime
However, the fact that the defendant's mistake and reflects the fact that the police officer's body did not exercise the direct force on the police officer's body, on April 2012, the fact that there was no criminal record other than the fine due to drinking driving, the victims and victims due to the damage of property have agreed smoothly, and other conditions of sentencing, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive for the crime, and circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as per the order.