A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. The Defendant shall, at around 02:50 on October 9, 2016, damage thief and damage property by destroying the glass of the extracted type C owner of the victim at his/her location with bricks, and six influences in the market price inside it;

L. L. L.C. theft.

2. On October 9, 2016, the Defendant, at around 03:50 on the road in front of Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, 2016, 112 reported that the Defendant, as described in paragraph (1) of the above, accompanied a string machine and brought a string of a person, who was dispatched by the Defendant, and 112, followed the Defendant’s desire to arrest the Defendant, and assaulted the Defendant, i.e., “F’s double, selling, and bridgeing 10 times.”

Defendant continued to have been on the same day 04:15 D-si, Busan.

E. Within the patrol zone of the E.S., the Defendant was seated next to the patrol zone.

E E Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz.

“The buckbucks,” and as soon as possible, assaulted the right buckbucks of G.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the handling of 112 reported cases by police officers and legitimate execution of duties concerning the arrest of flagrant offenders.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to F and G;

1. A list of the assignment to E District Work and 112 reported incidents;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. Relevant Article 329 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime (the point of intention) and Article 329 of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties) and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor, respectively;

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 reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution does not seem to be a serious part of the crime committed on the grounds of the gravity of obstructing the execution of official duties of this case. However, on the other hand, the defendant has been against himself/herself, he/she agreed with the victim of larceny and property damage, the fact that the defendant agreed with G of the victimized police officer, the fact that there is no criminal history, and the fact that there is no other criminal history, and the defendant's age, sex, and health.