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

1. On September 23, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around 23:50 on September 23, 2014, the victim D in Nam-gu, Gwangju-gu, destroyed the tabler and the gate owned by the victim by the victim, who was under the influence of alcohol, followed the tabler owned by the victim at the right angle and left the gate, such as scambing, scambling, etc. on the floor, and caused the table to be faced with the floor, so that the sum of the repair cost can be KRW 300,000,000.

2. On September 23, 2014, from around 23:50 to September 00, 2014, the Defendant interfered with business: (a) at the place described in paragraph (1) as seen above, the Defendant saw the victim and other employees of the victim who followed the table, and laid down the leash with his/her leash, as seen in the foregoing paragraph; and (b) made the victim saw the victim to be removed from G, who is an employee of the victim; (c) he/she was unable to carry out funeral services for 20 years in this Donge; (d) he/she did not look at; (e) he/she was hick; (e) he/she was hicked once from the inside; (e) when he/she took the head and shoulder of G; and (e) made customers leave the place.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the victim's main business by force.

3. At around 00:20 on September 24, 2014, the Defendant committed assault, such as: (a) around 00:20, at the place indicated in paragraph (1); (b) when the Defendant was arrested a flagrant offender from the JJ, an assistant I belonging to the H District of the Seoul Southern Police Station, the Hanam Police Station, who was called for after having been reported 112 as a result of the disturbance, and (c) when the Defendant was arrested a flagrant offender from the JJ on the part of the Hanam Police Station of Gwangjunam-gu, Seoul, Seoul; (d) when he saws the I’s breath, and flad the I’s bat;

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers on the arrest of flagrant offenders.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police suspect interrogation protocol against K;

1. Statement made by each police officer in relation to D, G, J and I;

1. Application of each film-related statute to on-site photographs (in a restaurant and damage of police officers);

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act (the point of causing property damage) for the crime, and the Criminal Act.