The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Punishment of the crime

1. On July 4, 2017, at around 00:10, the Defendant: (a) recommended the Defendant to return home in the vicinity of Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu; (b) the E box affiliated with the E box dispatched after receiving a report of 112; and (c) the Defendant expressed that “I ambling, f’s chest” was “I ambling three times by hand; and (d) ambling F’s chest by hand, f’s chest by hand, and f’s ambling in the course of carrying out the patrol onto the earth while getting on the f’s face.

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

2. When the Defendant was arrested as a current offender of the crime of interference with the performance of official duties at the above date and time, at the above place, and was on board the back seat of the patrol, the Defendant destroyed the patrol vehicle, which was an article used by the public office, by breaking the rubber string, thereby destroying the above patrol vehicle at KRW 93,500, market price.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

1. Photographs;

1. Application of the written estimate statutes;

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties), Article 141(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of damaging goods for public use) and the selection of fines for the crime;

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. Penalty fine of KRW 5,000,000 to be suspended;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., favorable circumstances deemed to be the reason for sentencing) of the suspended sentence is the case where the Defendant weared a uniform and committed violence against a police officer who performed public duties, and damaged a patrol vehicle which is a public object, and it is recognized that there is a need to strictize it in order to establish the national legal order and eradicate the light of the public authority.

However, the defendant has committed a contingent act while he or she is aware of his or her mistake and is in profoundly under influence.