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

1. Around October 1, 2017, the Defendant damaged the market value by gathering the instant instant cups, folds, and beer residuess, etc., which were placed on the table on the table, on the ground that they were drinking together with drinking in the “E” restaurant operated by Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Victim D, and on the ground that they were drinking together with drinking.

2. Around October 1, 2017, the Defendant obstructed the performance of official duties at the above “E” restaurant on the ground that G, a police officer belonging to the Seoul Sungdong Police Station F District, dispatched after receiving a report of 112 on the said ground, assaulted him/her two times on his/her hand on the ground that he/she prevents the Defendant.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. Each statement of D and H;

1. Application of photographs, CCTV video data photographs, and CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes to the scene of occurrence;

1. Relevant Article 136 of the Criminal Act, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties), Article 366 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for each 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. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Although the Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of mental and physical weakness by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act was deemed to have been in the state of taking action at the time of the crime, in light of the background, method and method of the crime of this case, the act before and after the crime, etc., the Defendant does not seem to have been in the state of weak ability to discern things or make decisions

Defendant

We do not accept the assertion of counsel.

The reason for sentencing is the confession of the defendant, the first offender, the agreement with the victim of the damage to property, the degree of interference with the execution of official duties of this case is not serious, and the arguments of this case are shown in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex, career, home environment, motive and means of the crime, circumstances after the crime.