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 February 23, 2018, the Defendant, at around 23:30 on the road of Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City, who was urged to return home from the police officer D, the police officer D, the police officer of the Busan Gangseo-gu Police Station C, who was called out after receiving a report on 112 on the road of the Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government B St St Stack, and who was boomed by both hand, and bread the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath.

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

2. Around 23:55 on the same day as paragraph 1 and paragraph 1 of this Article, the Defendant damaged public documents at the same place, and “the Defendant, without having a house, fright again, frighting to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright from the police officer D, the police officer D, the police officer fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright.

Accordingly, the Defendant damaged the goods used by public offices.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a investigation report (attached to a photograph and quotation damaged by a patrol vehicle);

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of public duties), Article 141(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of damaging public goods) and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for the 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. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Scope of sentencing recommended according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) Where the value of the article that has been invalidated and destroyed, in the mitigated area (one month to eight months) (special mitigation person), has been insignificant, as a type 1 (the invalidation and destruction of the article for public use) has been destroyed for a crime committed against 1;

(b) Where the degree of assault is minor in the mitigation area (one month to eight months) (special mitigation person) of Class 1 (Interference with the performance of official duties and coercion of official duties) (one month to eight months).

(c) The scope of final sentence due to the aggravation of multiple offenses: one month to one year; and

2. The crime of this case in which the sentence of sentence was determined.