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

1. On November 26, 2016, from around 18:30 to 19:05 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) obstructed the passage of vehicles on the road under the influence of alcohol on the E Toluth line managed by the victim D, the victim D; (b) obstructed the passage of vehicles on the road; and (c) obstructed the victim from taking a bath; and (d) obstructed the victim, the Defendant was unable to avoid any disturbance, such as moving the Toluth facility to the Toluth while taking a bath.

As a result, the defendant interfered with the management of the victim's Tol, by force.

2. On November 26, 2016, at around 22:10, the Defendant damaged public goods, opened the floor by breaking the wall of the detention room in the investigation and the detention room in the city police station and the detention room in the city where it is located 50 times in Sejong-ro, Sejong-ro, Sejong-ro at the time of inn, thereby falling into the floor.

Accordingly, the Defendant damaged the market value of goods used by public offices, which is equivalent to 66,00 won, and damaged the Chapter 1 of Twitday.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Each statement of G and H;

1. Application of the written estimate statutes;

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business), Article 141(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of damage to goods for public use) and the choice of imprisonment, respectively, with prison labor;

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 scope of the final sentence due to multiple concurrent crimes (one to one year and six months) in the basic area (referring to six months and one year and six months) of the first type of crimes (the invalidation of public goods) under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act for the reason of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Suspension of Execution Act (the scope of recommendations) [the scope of recommended punishment] that there is no person subject to special sentencing [the scope of business interference] under the basic area (referring to six months and one year and six months) of the first type of crimes (the scope of recommended punishment] under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act: six months and two years and three months [the decision of sentence] under the suspension of six months and six months (the defendant who has been sentenced several times) (the period of punishment was more severe than the ordinary fine and the amount of damage was less favorable to others, such as the circumstance that the defendant committed the crime of this case, and there was no record of less favorable punishment than the extent of damage.