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 became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. On November 17, 2016, the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties, at around 23:10 on November 17, 2016, at the Defendant’s residence located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and received a report of 112 domestic violence and obstructed the legitimate performance of duties by a judicial police officer for arresting a flagrant offender, who was notified of criminal facts in the course of arresting a flagrant offender from D (47 tax) who is a police officer belonging to the Jungran Police Station C in the Jungran Police Station, who was called for, and was notified of the criminal facts in the course of arresting a flagrant offender.

2. The Defendant destroyed property at the same time, at the same place, by taking a warning of the victim D, which fell away from the floor on the ground as above, and thereby damaging the safety of approximately KRW 318,00 in the market value as incidental.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to D or E;

1. Application of statutes on field photographs;

1. Relevant Article 136 of the Criminal Act, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties), Article 366 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for each 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. The grounds for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act for the suspended sentence are as follows: (a) the Defendant was punished by a fine due to a obstruction of the performance of official duties in a deceptive scheme on or around 2015; (b) the Defendant has a record of having been punished several times on or around 2013, including each of the instant offenses; (c) the Defendant confessions and reflects all of the instant offenses; (d) the Defendant was discharged from damage due to damage to the police officer who suffered damage; and (e) there was no record of criminal history exceeding the fine against the Defendant, taking into account all the circumstances and sentencing guidelines revealed in the records of the instant case and the changes theory; and (e) the punishment shall be determined as per the disposition.