However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. On August 20, 2015, the Defendant destroyed and damaged the property owned by the council of occupants' representatives of the apartment complex in the market price by breaking away the guard room in hand without any special reason while under the influence of alcohol in front of the guard room of Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, 501.

2. The Defendant, at the same time and place as stipulated in Paragraph (1) of the same Article, committed an act of obstructing the performance of official duties by putting the security guards out of D, who was dispatched to the scene after receiving a report of 112 by the security guards on the said grounds, and took the 10th of the police box of the Kimpo Police Station, and took the bath for the said D, and putting the above D’s left shoulder on her hand, and assaulting the left side bridge by walking the her hand.

As a result, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning 112 reported handling duties.

3. When the Defendant was arrested in the act of committing an act in violation of paragraph (2) at the same time and place as that of paragraph (1), and was on board the patrol vehicle No. 31 of the Kimpo Police Station, the Defendant damaged public goods equivalent to 28,765 won in repair cost by removing rubber fastening fixed in the rear gate of the patrol vehicle in his hand.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. E statements;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as a photograph of damage, patrol log, public official identification card copy, and written estimate;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 141 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

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

1. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Defendant’s assertion on the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (a favorable consideration of the reasons for sentencing below) was in a state of mental disorder because he was unable to memory under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime.

According to the records, the defendant's drinking is recognized at the time of the crime.