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. Interference with the execution of public duties;

A. On September 12, 2017, the Defendant 5, one of the five buildings of Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon on September 12, 2017, and one of the apartment buildings at the front parking lot of 109-dong, and the Defendant spawds to the players.

“A police officer D and E belonging to the Daejeon Police Station C District of the Daejeon Police Station, who was called upon 112 report, caused the Defendant who was living on the floor, to purchase the parts of the above D’s arms and legs by drinking and drinking, and assaulted the parts of the above E’s bridge that prevents the Defendant from doing so several times.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning the handling of 112 reports.

B. On September 12, 2017, the Defendant, at the front of the Busan Police Station that had been located in the 733th century, as the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon on September 12, 2017, arrested a flagrant offender on suspicion of assaulting the police officers performing their legitimate duties, and detained him from the patrol vehicle, with the face of the police officer G belonging to the Daejeon Police Station F of the Daejeon Police Station, and used it as a bluter with the face of the police officer G.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers related to criminal investigation.

2. While two apartment security guards hear as one of the time and places set forth in paragraph (1) of this Article at a time, place, etc., the Defendant: D and E of the victimized person’s “A bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch.”

“Publicly insulting victims”. “The victims were sexually insulting.”

3. On September 12, 2017, around 19:35, the Defendant: (a) assaulted police officers during lawful performance of their duties and arrested them in flagrante, and subsequently, destroyed that the said police officers take the Defendant on the back of the patrol vehicle; and (b) destroyed the protective wall installed in the said patrol vehicle to have the repair cost of KRW 723,80,00, including exchange of partitions.

Accordingly, the Defendant damaged the goods used by public offices.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Entry in a complaint;

1. Statement of automobile inspection and maintenance;

1. Each police statement protocol with respect to D, E, and G.