A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four 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 August 2, 2017, at around 02:10, the Defendant destroyed the part of the delivery part of the above Orabababababa in order for the Defendant to enter the repair cost in his hand by cutting off the Escki UM125 Q Q Q Q, which was parked in the front of the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 2 and the 1st floor “C cafeteria” restaurant, without any justifiable reason.

2. On August 2, 2017, the Defendant: (a) was arrested in a flagrant act under the same suspicion as the preceding paragraph on August 2, 2017; (b) was transferred to the F of the Dongjak Police Station in Seoul and the office; and (c) was seated at the back seat of the patrol vehicle in Seoul, Gwanak-gu, Seoul, while getting aboard the patrol vehicle to the cell of the Seoul Gwanak-gu Police Station; and (d) was seated at the back seat of the patrol vehicle in Seoul, Gwanak-gu, Seoul, and the police officers assigned to the Seoul Gwanak-gu Police StationF and the police officers assigned to the said station.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers related to the management and escort of suspects.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each statement of I, J and H;

1. Photographs damaged by property;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report internal investigation (Attachment to photographs attached to the upper part of the police officer concerned by a person who has interfered with the performance of official duties);

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense and the point of destroying property on the option of punishment: Interference with the performance of official duties under Article 366 of the Criminal Act: Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act;

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 scope of punishment under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution stipulated in the sentencing guidelines of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is limited to crimes 1 (Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties) [the scope of punishment recommended] [the scope of punishment under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution], where the degree of interference with violence, intimidation, deceptive scheme, or public duties is minor, the scope of punishment under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution is minor, the scope of punishment under Article 62(1) [the scope of punishment under Article 62(1) [the scope of punishment under Article 62(1) [the scope of punishment under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution of Public Duties]. The defendant who was sentenced in January or November shall be subject to criminal facts.