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

1. On May 28, 2016, the Defendant: (a) reported that, around 22:50 on May 28, 2016, at the front factory in front of the C Building, ETB car owned by the victim D (Inn, 47 years of age) was parked; and (b) the previous victim expressed the Defendant’s desire.

The memory is flicking the stone on the ground floor of the world, and the market price flicks the back glass part of the driver's car above the market price, and flicks it down.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the victim's property.

2. On May 28, 2016, the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties, at the place indicated in paragraph 1 at around 23:12, on May 28, 2016, when he was asked questions as to whether the Defendant was the Defendant, who broken away the glass of the vehicle from G belonging to the police box of the Leecheon Police Station, security guards, and security guards dispatched to the said site after receiving 112 reports, such as “the person under the influence of alcohol was damaged”, and the said police officer took a bath.

Defendant “I,” from G, “Ise several ages of murder, and whether I wish to do so.”

“When hearing the horses,” etc., “Woo-hick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-k

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers in criminal investigations.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to G and I;

1. Photographs of damaged vehicles;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (Attachment of screen materials at the site that obstructs the performance of official duties - investment I);

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties), 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. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act ( Taking into account the favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing) [Interference with the execution of official duties] [Scope of recommending] [The scope of punishment] shall not interfere with the performance of official duties in the basic area (six months to one year and four months).