A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

Criminal facts

1. In around 07:00 on November 29, 2015, the Defendant damaged public goods by discovering a D patrol vehicle belonging to the Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu Police Station, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, which was parked to handle the 112 reported cases, and without any special reason, putting the door door of the patrol vehicle’s right door up to the right door, and then destroying goods used by public offices so that the repair cost amounting to KRW 106,700,00 may be reduced to KRW 106,70.

2. 공무집행 방해 피고인은 제 1 항과 같은 일시 무렵 제 1 항 기재 노래방에서, 112 신고를 받고 출동하여 도난 사건을 확인하고 있는 영등포 경찰서 E 지구대 소속 경장 F에게 “ 야, 짭새 새끼들 돈 받아먹었냐.

In doing so, “Abreing” is deemed to fall within the foregoing F, and “abreing, chewing, and drinking fats,” and “abreing the fats of the above F,” the police officer interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of reports by assaulting the 112 police officers, such as walking the fats at one time.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the protocol concerning the examination of the suspect against the defendant;

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

1. G statements;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs destroying patrol vehicles;

1. Article 141(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime (damage to goods for public use);

In this regard, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (which interferes with the execution of official duties)

O. Imprisonment selection)

1. The reason for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act that aggravated concurrent crimes [the scope of the recommended punishment] [the basic area as to the damage of goods for public use]: there is no person who has damaged goods for public use from June to one year and six months [the person who is subject to special sentencing] [the decision of sentencing] [the defendant's illegal act is very large considering that the defendant accompanied a police patrol vehicle used for public service without any particular reason and used an assault against the police officer on official duty in the course of performing public service.

On the other hand, the defendant's mistake in the process of being investigated.