1. On April 26, 2014, at around 22:15, the Defendant: (a) discovered the victim’s cell phone equipment owned by the victim, which was on the table, and discovered the victim’s cell phone equipment on the table; and (b) took one cell phone device of 800,000, using the victim’s cell phone device in which the victim’s surveillance was neglected, and stolen it.

2. On April 26, 2014, at around 22:30 on April 26, 2014, the Defendant: (a) stated that the victim D (here, 62 years of age) was found at the Defendant’s home located in Daejeon Central District of Daejeon and demanded a return of a mobile phone; (b) stated that “in the Republic of Korea, two years of age or both years of age,” and that “in the country, she would be imprisoned; and (c) assaulted the next victim once on the part of the Defendant’s home located in Daejeon Central District of Daejeon.”

3. On April 26, 2014, the Defendant committed an act of obstruction of performance of official duties: (a) around 23:10, the Defendant discovered that the police officer, who was a police officer belonging to the Daejeon District G District in the Daejeon Police Station G District, sent out after receiving a report of D 112, as mentioned in the above 2. paragraph (2) of the same Article, concealed the victim’s cell phone device under the supervision of the laundry machine; (b) asked questions about the reason for the theft of the mobile phone device, and (c) assaulted the victim, such as “the victim’s laundk kk kk kk kk kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of the police officer's 112 mobilization and criminal investigation.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of each statute on police statements made to D and H;

1. Relevant Article 329 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, Article 329 of the Criminal Act, Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment for a crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant was in a state of mental disability under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, and that the Defendant was in a state of mental disability. As such, the Defendant was able to look at the instant crime.