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 became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. On July 17, 2019, at around 03:50, the Defendant: (a) removed and destroyed a brush equivalent to KRW 200,000 in the market price, which was installed at the same place, owned by the victim C, on the ground that the victim C did not comply with the Defendant’s request; (b) on the ground that the victim did not comply with the Defendant’s request, the Defendant removed and destroyed the brush.

2. At around 04:00 on July 17, 2019, the Defendant: (a) received 112 a report from the main points indicated in paragraph (1); (b) expressed a desire to ask questions about the damage of the said tables from the circumstances surrounding the D District District of the Daejeon Western Police Station, Daejeon, and called “I will see, die, I will do, I do it with the intention of “I will do it with the intention of shot, I do it with the intention of 3 to 4 times; and (c) assaulted E’s chest by hand.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Each police statement of C and E;

1. Investigation report, list of 112 reported cases handled, list of work days in the D District Unit, on-site photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing repair cost confirmation;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act and Article 366 of the choice of punishment for the crime (the point of causing damage and destruction of property, the choice of imprisonment), and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing performance of official duties

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental retardation under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case. Thus, even though the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime, it is difficult to recognize that the defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental retardation at the time of the crime. The above argument is rejected.

The defendant for sentencing is performing official duties.