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

1. On November 25, 2019, the Defendant: (a) around 23:50 on November 25, 2019, the damage and damage of property: D where the victim C works in the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, demanding its employees to request coffee to E; (b) but was refused, the Defendant damaged the damage by making one of the hedge s on the market price managed by the victim, which was installed behind the computer monitors, by hand.

2. On November 26, 2019, the Defendant committed an assault by the Defendant of obstruction of performance of official duties, at around 00:02, on the 112th day of the 2019, that “Fack Police Station Fackn, Seoul, China, and the police box, who was called to the site after having received a report of 112 that “Sack’s son’s son was under the influence of alcohol, facing him to view his identity,” and who was requested by G to present his identification card from the police officer of the Seoul, the Defendant

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. Each statement of E and C preparation;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 136 of the Criminal Act, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment for the crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the grounds of suspended sentence is deemed to have committed the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties repeatedly even though the defendant had the past record of punishment due to the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, and there is also need to punish the defendant strictly because it is judged that the possibility of recidivism is reasonable.

However, it shall be considered in favor of the defendant as a favorable condition for the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant is against himself and the victims are seeking the preference of the defendant.