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

1. On January 23, 2018, the Defendant: (a) around 23:50 on the ground that the cell phone that requested the filling of alcohol within the “Ekbook” operated by the victim D (36 aged) of the Cheongju-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Cheongju-si was not properly filled, the Defendant damaged the victim’s property in an amount equivalent to KRW 5,140,000,000 for the repair cost, which was taken by the Defendant.

2. Interference with performing public duties;

A. G (26) on the ground that the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties in the E carpet, on January 24, 2018, at around 00:20,00 and around 112 reported at the places indicated in paragraph (1) around 00:20, G (26) brought about the instant case to the Defendant’s first executive officer of the police station F District of the Cheongju, a police officer affiliated with the police station of the Republic of Korea, who was called out after receiving a report, G

G’s arms were carried by hand, knicked with G’s hand, knicked with knick, and spawd with G’s hand, and spawd on several occasions.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of report and security by police officers.

B. Around 00:40 on January 24, 2018, the Defendant: (a) committed assault, such as assaulting the Defendant, at a police stationF district located in the Cheongju-gu considerable area of the Cheongju-si; (b) even after the Defendant was arrested in the act of committing a crime suspected of damaging property and obstructing the performance of official duties, such as the preceding paragraph, and (c) the Defendant 1 (24 years old), who was a police officer belonging to the FF district, attempted to take double diving against the Defendant; (d) expressed that the Defendant “breathing” was “breathing” to the said I; and (e) assaulted the Defendant, such as walking the I’s left side buckbuck.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers on the handling of reports and security.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made in relation to D, I, and G;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing the arrest and report of the occurrence of the case, investigation reports, estimates, and field photographs;

1. Relevant provisions of the Act concerning facts constituting an offense;