1. On January 26, 2018, the Defendant interfered with his duties: (a) around 10:14, at the E-cafeteria operated by the Victim D located in Singu, on the ground that the Defendant assaulted other customers and reported the said restaurant employees to the police; (b) he reported why he reported to the police while taking a bath to his employees; (c) 8, 15, 15, 8, 15, 8, 15, 3, 3, 3, 6, 6, 6, 8, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, and 3. of the entrance.

2. The Defendant damaged the property by damaging the property owned by the victim, such as the time and place described in paragraph 1, Nos. 8, 15, 15, 3, 6, and 450,000 won in total in market prices, including 2, 3, 3, 1, 6, and 6,000 won in front of the entrance, by cutting off the strings, 3,000.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of F’s written Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 316 of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime;

1. Grounds for sentencing under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the same Act, as the punishment for concurrent crimes;

1. Crimes 1 (Obstruction of Duties) within the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines (Interference with Duties). The mitigation area (one month to eight months) is reduced (special mitigation factors).