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

1. On October 5, 2015, the Defendant damaged 200,000 won in total of the market price owned by the victim C by means of making the table table, which was kept by beer, beer, beer, beer, and beer, etc. enter a radio microphone on which the table table was located, to prevent the operation of the said microphone, on the grounds that around 00:10 on October 5, 2015, the Defendant damaged 20,000 won in total.

2. The Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties, at the date and time specified in paragraph 1, and at the place specified in paragraph 1, 112, who was dispatched to the site by the Defendant upon receipt of a report from the Defendant’s 112 report and was demanded by F to verify the identity of the police officer belonging to the Bana Police Station Ear-gu, Bana F, Mana F, F.

N. Does his identity be expressed in the way that he knows.

In response to the la, Ma, Ma, Ma, Ma, Ma, Ma, and assaulted the F's title at one time on the right hand.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on handling 112 reports.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the F (victim);

1. Each statement;

1. Investigation report (to be accompanied by a estimate for damage caused by microact and shock);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to field photographs and business permission photographs, and photographs of damaged police officers;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties), and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor 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. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act is an unfavorable circumstance to the defendant, such as the defendant’s damage to the victim’s property, assaulted the police officer who was dispatched upon receiving a report to interfere with the legitimate execution of duties by the police officer, and the nature of the crime is bad, and the defendant’s failure to repay the victim’

(b).