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

At around 00:20 on August 4, 2018, the Defendant reported 112 that “the Defendant was under influence of alcohol,” the Defendant’s seated at the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu (Seoul Seocho-gu)’s Singing practice room, and received a report from the Defendant, the Defendant: (a) sent to the said site; (b) the circumstances leading up to the Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho Police Station D box, who was called the Defendant, and the police officer requested the Defendant to sit down and talked with a showion; and (c) without any reason, the Defendant used the Defendant’s f’s frobbbling, and flabing the Defendant’s f.m., f., f., f., f.s., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f.s., f., f., f., f., and f., f.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers E and F concerning the handling of reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to F, E, and C;

1. Application of statutes on photographs of damage;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for the relevant criminal facts;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act in the suspension of execution appears to be against the Defendant’s recognition of the instant crime, and favorable circumstances such as student occupation, and thus, it appears that the injury of the victimized police officer would not be mitigated. Considering the fact that the Defendant had been punished once as “the crime of injury and damage to public goods” as the same type of the instant case, the Defendant considered the fact that there was a history of punishment as “the crime of injury and damage to public goods,” and comprehensively considering the sentencing conditions under Article 5