When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

1. On July 7, 2016, the Defendant who damaged property is the victim E who has made a male-friendly appearance at the Daejeon Dong-gu and the first floor parking lot around 00:20 on July 7, 2016;

For this reason, the victim's flicked Flicked Flicked, which was parked in the location, was damaged by the damage of the property by unloading the meter board of the Otoba one time in a U.S.

2. On July 7, 2016, the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties, who received a report from the Daejeon Dong-dong, Daejeon, on July 7, 2016, at around 00:28, 112, and was dispatched to the police officer, the police officer of the Daejeon Police Station, the Daejeon Police Station, who was a police officer, to ask the police officer for the instant case.

The driver tried the victim's face and head at one time with the hand floor, and tried the victim's face and head at one time with the driver's face and head, and assaulted the police officer at one time with the driver's face and head of the police officer at one time each, while being arrested as a flagrante and connected with the patrol vehicle.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The witness I and the J's respective legal statements and the witness E's partial legal statements;

1. Statement made to I by the police;

1. Each E statement;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of dives of damaged dives and photographs;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act and Article 366 of the Criminal Act (the point of destroying property and the choice of fines) concerning facts constituting an offense, and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties and the selection of fines);

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 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The fact that the sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is not good enough, and the fact that the victimized police officer wants to punish the defendant is disadvantageous.

It seems that the crime of this case is committed in a drunken state, E is not wanting to be punished by the defendant, and there is no record of criminal punishment against the defendant.

(2).