A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On October 9, 2015, while under the influence of alcohol around 01:50, the Defendant was unable to see D convenience points in Gwangju City, and see the victim E (35 years of age) who is an employee of Gwangju City, for a time-frame, “a person who knows who is in the military within the military,” and brea the victim’s breath, with the response that the victim was born, pushed the victim’s breath, and pushed the victim’s breath, five times the breath of the victim’s left breath with his hand, and 10 minutes of the victim’s breath, with the victim’s hand, the Defendant was able to escape from the disturbance.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the management and operation of the above convenience store of the damaged person.

2. The Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties: (a) on October 9, 2015, at around 01:55, the Defendant: (b) was informed of a disturbance at a place of port 1 at around 01:55; and (c) was informed of the circumstances belonging to the G and police officer of the Seoul Police Station, who was called to the site, and was solicited to return home from H, and (d) the said G, “I ambbk by killing f

“In large sounds, the body of G was pushed down by hand, and the clothes of G was shacked, and assaulted on one occasion by drinking the left shoulder of G.

As a result, the defendant assaulted police officers, thereby obstructing police officers from performing their legitimate duties in relation to the prevention of crimes and handling reports.

3. On October 9, 2015, the Defendant damaged public goods: (a) removed and destroyed the toilets gate, which were in the office of the 135 Gwangju Police Station, from the office of the 135 Gwangju Police Station, while arrested flagrant offenders for the same reason as described in paragraphs (1) and (2).

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement protocol with respect to E and G;

1. A photograph of a field CCTV course;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs destroying public goods;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business), Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with the performance of official duties) against criminal facts, and Article 141(1) of the Criminal Act (damage to public goods).