However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. On April 29, 2018, the Defendant: (a) 22:40 on April 29, 2018; (b) 2:40 on April 29, 201, was drinking together in the “D” five rooms in the operation of the victim C.

E, on the ground that E, etc. smokes tobacco from the room, he/she laid the beer and beer’s disease at the TV installed therein so that it can be cut off to the unpaid repair cost, and as a result, he/she has opened several visits equivalent to KRW 200,000 at the market price on several occasions, and as a result, he/she has divided the powder fire extinguishing machine installed there into a large amount of KRW 80,000,000,000 in a total market price in that place, and 2,000,000,000,000 won in a total market price in that place is broken.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the property owned by the victim.

2. The Defendant obstructed the performance of official duties at the same date and time as in the preceding paragraph, and at a place where 112 was reported and demanded to leave the F District G belonging to, and outside the five room from, the Y of the Seocheonbuk-gu Police Station in the YY, Seocheon-gu, Seoul, Seoul, to leave the said police officer at the same time and place as in the preceding paragraph.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of duties by police officers on the handling of 112 reported duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to H, G, and C;

1. A report on investigation (verification of the degree of damage to TV);

1. A list of seizure records (voluntary submission), and a list of seizure;

1. Written estimate of construction works;

1. Receipts:

1. Medical certificate (G);

1. Medical certificate (H);

1. On-site and victim photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to fire extinguishers photographs;

1. Article 366 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties);

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of ordinary concurrent crimes (limited to cases where a person interferes with the execution of each official duty);

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment;

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. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the conditions favorable to the following reasons for sentencing)

1. Scope of the recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

(a)the general criteria for the crime of destroying property;