A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. Around 04:00 on July 9, 2018, the Defendant interfered with the business of interfering with the business of inserting the horses by the victim C, which was operated by the victim C, on the ground that the employees, etc., in the course of being marinad do not have a blickbbbbbly, in the stud body, in a stude and stude for about one hour on the ground that the employees, etc. do not have a blickbbly, thereby obstructing the business of inserting the horses of the said victim by force.

2. The Defendant damaged property by destroying the victim C’s influent glass and the market value equivalent to KRW 30,000 in the market value by breaking the table located at the same time and place as in paragraph 1, at the same time and place as in paragraph 1.

3. Performance of official duties.

A. On July 9, 2018, at around 04:15, the Defendant committed the crime at around 04:15 on July 9, 2018, and at the same place as Paragraph 1, around 04:15, the Defendant obstructed the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties in relation to the handling of the instant report by following the Defendant: (a) the police officer, who was a police officer of the Mapo Police Station E-gu, called the E-gu Police Station, sent out after receiving a 112 report to the effect that “the drunk f, who was a police officer of the Mapo Police Station, will stop the disturbance and stop the disturbance from G; and (b) he she expressed that “I will spath, spad, spad, and spad, spad, spad with the chest part of the Defendant’s chest and spad with G.

B. On July 9, 2018, the Defendant committed the crime at around 06:27, on July 9, 2018, at the entrance of the “Bapo Police Station” on the first floor of the wooden Police Station as the name of woodpoon on July 9, 2018. The Defendant obstructed a police officer’s legitimate execution of duties in relation to the arrest of flagrant offenders, by spiting down the faces, trees, etc. of police officers G, who were arrested as flagrant offenders committing obstruction of performance of official duties, such as the foregoing paragraph (a) and were transferred to the same police station and office.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement concerning G and C;

1. Each statement;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the photograph of each case and the closure of video images;

1. Article 314 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts and the choice of punishment.