A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. Highest 2012 highest 3181;

A. From November 13, 2012, the Defendant: (a) 15:22 on November 13, 2012, the Special obstruction of Performance of Official Duties: (b) Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine, the Defendant Doctrine Doctrine, driving a D motor vehicle owned by the Defendant; and (c) Doctrine Doctrine E, who was working in the said location and was working in the said location; (d) Doctrine E, a dangerous object that he had in advance, called “I want to be placed in the door because I want to do so.” (e.g., the total length, 21.5cm and 11ccm in length) and Doctrine E, and (e.g., the police officer died and became a knife at once in the said C motor vehicle office.

The Defendant, while carrying dangerous objects as above, obstructed police officers from performing their legitimate duties in relation to their work in the situation.

B. At around 15:45 on the same day as Paragraph 1, the Defendant: (a) 15:45 on the day, the Defendant was able to take a drinking test on the ground of Paragraph 1; (b) but on the ground of Paragraph 1, a waterproof (0.042%) and a slope E cannot control the slope; (c) the Defendant destroyed the Defendant’s equipment in a manner that the amount equivalent to KRW 127,00 for the repair cost of the patrol car Franchisa car, which was parked, to “whether it is possible to arrest him/her to drink any more and difficult to drive; and (d) the Defendant could arrest him/her.”

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

2. Highest 89

A. A property damage (1) around December 23, 2012, the Defendant destroyed 9 plastic parking bars of 217,800 won in the market price managed by the victim H, who is an employee of the above apartment management office in front of the Y of the G apartment in Yasan-si, Yasan-si.

(2) On December 24, 2012, the Defendant, at around 21:40, did not call the above apartment management office, and rather called the Defendant’s 209 Dong 102, the Defendant, who was an employee, was the Defendant’s office, and was in the above management office.