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

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On November 17, 2017, the Defendant destroyed property: (a) around 11:40 on November 17, 2017; (b) when the security staff of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor’s Office was removed from the 158 Seoul Central Public Prosecutor’s Office from the 158 Seoul Central Public Prosecutor’s Office due to the receipt of the accusation, the Defendant attempted to do so by a fake police officer.

“A” and the victim D in C has entered the E.S. dollars office managed by the victim D, and the market price has been divided into three parts by using a fire extinguisher for the end of the minutes in that place.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged one fire extinguisher and three fire extinguishings in the market price managed by the damaged person.

2. The Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties, at the same time and time as the preceding paragraph, and at the scene of 112 reported and sent out the office door closed by G, a police officer affiliated with the Seoul Western Police Station F police box, who was dispatched to the scene, committed assault by the Defendant, such as: (a) breaking the face of the above G; and (b) breaking the face and the face of the face and walking the clothes at several times.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. Written statements of D, H and I;

1. Application of each Act and subordinate statutes to five on-site photographs, and photographs of damage situations caused by victim G;

1. Articles 136 (1) and 366 of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties) concerning facts constituting an offense and the choice of imprisonment, 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 is against the defendant's acknowledgement of facts charged.

There is no record of punishment for the same crime or the suspension of execution or heavier punishment.

The victim of the crime of damage to property was fully agreed with.

The degree of interference with the performance of official duties is not easy.

In addition, the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive and result of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc. shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the various sentencing conditions shown in the arguments in this case.