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

1. On December 3, 2017, at around 00:30 on December 3, 2017, the Defendant: (a) discovered that the Defendant cited a mobile phone in order to take photographs with the victim D (23 taxes) in front of the cafeteria of Seoul Gangnam-gu Seoul building C cafeteria; (b) made the victim’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son, and caused

2. The Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties at the same place as the preceding paragraph of 00:40 on the same day, and at the same time after being called out after being reported 112, requested the Defendant to suspend the above D and the desire for the above-mentioned D and their daily activities, and obstructed the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties concerning the handling of the report of 112.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made with respect to D, G, and F;

1. Photographs of an article damaged by property;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the on-site CCTV closure screen;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (the 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. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act under Article 62(1) of the suspended sentence is that the defendant damaged another person’s property without any reason, and the police officer in the process of performing his/her duties committed assault, and the defendant selects imprisonment in that the nature of the crime is not good.

However, the fact that the defendant agreed with the victim of the damage of property, there are no records of punishment except for the punishment sentenced twice, the recognition of his crime and the violation, and the fact that he seems to have been under the influence of alcohol to a considerable extent at the time of the crime of this case (it does not seem that the state of mental and physical disorder was not seen).