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.

around 02:50 on September 30, 2017, the Defendant: (a) visited the above Public Security Center in order to report the trial cost between the Defendant and his/her name in Mapo-gu Seoul Police Center in Mapo-gu, Mapo-gu; (b) on the ground that there was no police officer residing there was a visit to the above Public Security Center in order to report the trial cost between the Defendant and his/her name, the Defendant broken down the amount equivalent to 50,000 won at the door of the above Public Security Center.

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

around 23:56 March 14, 2018, the Defendant: (a) received a report from the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Entertainment station to the effect that “I will not pay the drinking value”; and (b) paid the drinking value to the police officers, such as the security guards E belonging to the Seoul Mapo-gu Police Station D, sent to the site; (c) continued to take a bath for the police officers, and (d) continued to stop on the street above the above main station and the police officers; (c) prevented the police officers from departing from the patrol vehicle; and (d) the chest part of the above E, who gets home again, took twice the 112 report by the police officers and interfere with the legitimate performance of duties concerning the handling of order and handling of order.

Summary of Evidence

"2017 Highest 3472"

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A written statement;

1. Photographs at the scene of the crime "2018 Highest 942";

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of police statement protocol to E;

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 141(1) of the Criminal Act (a) (a point of damage to goods for public use), Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (a point of obstructing the performance of official duties) and the choice of imprisonment 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. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following sentencing shall be considered as favorable circumstances, etc. in consideration of the importance of sentencing):

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on the Observation, etc. of Protection, etc. of Social Service Order;

1. One type of crime (the scope of recommendations) of the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines shall be deemed to be invalid and destroyed;