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

1. On March 27, 2017, the Defendant: (a) received a penalty from the police officer’s police box B at the police station B in the Ulsan-dong Police Station B, Ulsan-gu, U.S., where he was called upon and received a report, and subsequently returned to C with C while returning home with C, the Defendant: (b) took a bath at the entrance of the 118 B apartment unit in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, U.S., Ulsan-gu, that “Is about Chewing typ typ, pomb,” without any justifiable reason; and (c) assaulted C in a manner that “Is face on a drinking basis,” while returning home with C at the entrance of the 118 unit of the D apartment.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers on the maintenance of public peace and order.

2. The Defendant damaged property, at the time and place set forth in the preceding paragraph, caused the victim’s losses to fall from the floor of the victim’s cell phone, such as the time and place set forth in the preceding paragraph, thereby impairing the utility of the victim’s LG mobile phone so that the repair cost of KRW 381,500 is 381,50.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. E statements;

1. A written notification and photographic data of the penalty payment;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report internal investigation (Attachment to a certificate of performance of damage);

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense and obstructing the performance of official duties in the choice of punishment: Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act; Article 366 of the Criminal Act; Article 366 of the Criminal Act; and Article 36 of the Imprisonment;

1. The provision of the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the same Act (the punishment shall be aggravated for concurrent crimes with the punishment determined by a crime of interfering with the execution of heavier public duties);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Even if the Defendant’s assertion regarding the Defendant’s assertion that he/she was unable to memory under the influence of alcohol under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, in light of the background leading up to each of the instant crimes, the method and method of the crime, the progress after the crime, etc., the Defendant was in a state that he/she did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of each of the instant crimes.