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. On March 23, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 00:00, at the main point of “E” operated by the victim D in the petition-gu, Cheongju-si; (b) on March 23, 2017, the Defendant demanded the cancellation of payment to the victim, even though he did not pay the drinking value by credit card; (c) the Defendant was on the part of the Defendant and the Defendant, while making the payment with the victim.

The CCTV monitors have been destroyed by 300,000 won in the market price, such as that the connect between monitors and contact parts are broken and the entire area is not entered.

2. On March 23, 2017, at around 00:15, the Defendant, at the place indicated in paragraph 1, and at around 112, the Defendant, a police officer of the Cheongju Police Station, called the F District Police Station G (48 tax), called the Defendant, who was dispatched upon receiving a report that the Defendant was suffering from disturbance, obstructed the police officer’s legitimate execution of duties regarding the handling of the report of 112 cases, by assaulting the Defendant, such as “Ie, Ie, Ie, Ie., Ie., Ie., Ie., Ie., Ie., Ie., Iear.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to D or G;

1. A damaged photograph;

1. Written estimate;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that he was in a state of mental or physical loss or mental weakness under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant case.

According to the records, the Defendant was aware of the fact that he was drinking at the time of committing the instant crime; however, in light of the background leading up to the instant crime, the means and method of committing the instant crime, and the Defendant’s speech and behavior before and after the instant crime, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

Therefore, the above argument cannot be accepted.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense, Article 366 of the Criminal Act selecting a punishment (the point of destroying property), Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties) and imprisonment with prison labor, respectively;