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.

1. 재물 손괴 피고인은 2018. 3. 10. 00:30 경 강남구 B 앞길에서 피해자 C(68 세) 가 운행하는 D 소나타 택시에 승차한 후 피해자가 목적지를 제대로 알아듣지 못한다는 이유로 위 택시 안에 있는 카드 결제기를 손으로 잡아 뜯어 던지고, 조수석 문, 트렁크, 왼쪽 사이드 미러를 주먹으로 치고, 발로 걷어찼다.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the 777,159 won of the repair cost of the above taxi owned by the victim.

2. The Defendant who interfered with the performance of official duties was aboard the patrol vehicle to voluntarily accompany the police station along with F of the police box belonging to the Seoul Gangnam Police Station E commander of the Seoul Gangnam Police Station, which was dispatched after receiving a report of 112 at the date and time set forth in paragraph (1), and at the place set forth in paragraph (1).

The term “the above police officer’s upper part was flick at one time by hand, and his upper part was tightly pushed by hand.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Application of the written estimate statutes;

1. The pertinent legal provisions on criminal facts, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 136 of the Criminal Act, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, and each decision of imprisonment [in relation to interference with the performance of official duties, the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant's act of a police officer who tried to accompany the defendant who refuses to accompany the police officer on the patrol team is not legitimate execution of official duties, and thus the defendant's act of resisting the above passive resistance is not a crime of interference with the performance of official duties. However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the defendant's consent to the request of voluntary accompanying to the scene in relation to violence between the defendant and the victim at the time, and the defendant's act of resisting the above passive resistance is not a crime of interference