However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date of the final judgment.

1. On December 29, 2013, the Defendant: (a) destroyed the damage of property by cutting off the amount equivalent to KRW 121,000,00 in front of the entrance entrance of the F Bus driven by the victim E without any justifiable reason, while under the influence of alcohol on the D front bus platform located in Seo-jin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seojin-gu C.

2. The obstruction of performance of official duties, the Defendant, at the time and place specified in paragraph (1) above, received a report on the crime of 112 set forth in paragraph (1) above at the G District G District of the Jeondong-gu Police Station G District: “Nice police officer is,” and the face and part of the police officer’s face and part of the police officer’s face were sent to the right door once for about two weeks, and at the same time interfere with the police officer’s legitimate performance of official duties concerning the dispatch of the report of 112 criminal acts.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to E, H and I;

1. Each investigation report and evidential materials attached thereto;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to medical certificates, field photographs, and estimates;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes (the crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties, between the crimes of bodily injury and the punishment heavier than that of bodily injury, and the punishment, and the choice of imprisonment);

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Suspension of execution under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant made a confession of the crime in this case and reflects in depth the mistake, that the result of the multiple damage is not much serious, that the defendant made a smooth agreement with the victim of damage to property, and that the defendant deposited a gold of KRW 1,500,000 for the police officer who suffered damage, etc.);

1. It is so decided as per Disposition on the grounds of Article 62-2 or more of the Criminal Act;