A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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. On May 4, 2020, the Defendant damaged public goods, at around 20:30 on May 4, 202, 202, the Defendant, while drunk in front of the housing B in front of the housing of Suwon-gu Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, the Defendant 1,576,00 won of the market price managed by the Amba-dong Administrative Welfare Center, was placed above the floor of the Party.

Accordingly, the defendant has harmed the utility of the articles used by public offices.

2. On May 4, 2020, the Defendant committed assault, such as: (a) around 20:45, at the place of Paragraph (1); (b) and (c) around 112 reported on the same ground as Paragraph (1); (b) and (c) upon being dispatched from Suwon Police Station C District Police Station D, the Defendant expressed the said D’s desire to “absing” to “absing,” and boomed the body of the said D by hand.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning 112 reports.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement of D or E;

1. A written statement;

1. Photographs taken of a control camera against unauthorized dumping of destroyed waste;

1. A program for arranging a DNA image;

1. Application of the statutes governing a written estimate;

1. Relevant Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 141(1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 141(1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of imprisonment for the crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act for probation and community service order are not good, and the Defendant has been guilty of violence-related criminal records, etc., which are disadvantageous to the Defendant. On the other hand, the fact that the Defendant is against the truth of the crime, that there was an agreement with the victim of damage to public goods, and that the branch wants the Defendant’s wife, etc., shall be considered as favorable to the Defendant, respectively, and all other sentencing conditions indicated in the records of this case shall be considered as favorable to the Defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.