At around 14:30 on July 7, 2014, the Defendant was in front of the police box consisting of 160, 14:30, the Jeoncheon-gun, Jeoncheon-gun, the Jeoncheon-gun, and the employees of the police box installed a sign “non-standing” sign at the front of the police box, installed a corrective device, and, with the knowledge that the police box was not within the police box, carried out any other means, and without any particular reason, she was able to gather up the stone and the 9th floor of the police box, which is a dangerous object in the vicinity of the police box, with the display of the anti-spe and the 1st floor of the police box and the 2nd floor of the box.

The Defendant continued to intrude into the police box through a string glass door, and spawn the fire extinguisher inside the police box using a fire extinguisher that was located therein, and spawn down the second floor through stairs.

The Defendant, using the stones and bricks that are dangerous articles, destroyed the glass of the Kacheon Police Team, which is a public office, thereby damaging the market value of 3.80,00 won, and invaded into the Kacheon Police Team, which is a managed building.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement of C or D;

1. Each investigation report and evidential materials attached thereto;

1. Application of written estimates and CCTV image-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Articles 144(1), 141(1), and 319(1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of imprisonment for a crime, and the choice of imprisonment for a crime;

1. From among concurrent crimes, the sentencing reasons under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act are recognized as favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant led to the confession of the crime of this case and reflects in depth the mistake, that the defendant bears the repair cost of the goods damaged to recover damage, and that the defendant has no criminal record exceeding the fine.

However, the defendant's crime of this case is not only a serious challenge to the public authority that committed on the ground that his intention was not achieved, but also a dangerous object is used in the course of committing the crime.