A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

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

Punishment of the crime

[criminal record] The defendant was sentenced to a fine of two million won for the crime of damage to public goods in the official support of the Daejeon District Court on August 17, 2009.

[criminal facts] On July 31, 2014, around 00:50, the Defendant damaged incidental public goods to the extent that the repair cost amounting to KRW 45,400 is 45,00,00 for the following reasons: (a) while considering the summary of the instant case, E, the former wife of the Defendant, and the Defendant’s Ha, who was the Defendant’s wife, received 112 reports from each other; and (b) E, the circumstances belonging to the G District in the official police station G District called the Defendant in front of the Defendant, etc. called the Defendant.

After that, while the Defendant was living together with the vehicle E, the Defendant took the following H: (a) sounded that “I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am.” and obstructed the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties concerning the handling of reports by 112.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Written estimate for vehicle repair and photographs of damaged vehicles;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation and report on investigation (to hear statements by police officers visiting the same police station);

1. Relevant Article 141(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the occupation of damage to public goods and the choice of imprisonment), the choice of punishment for the crime (the occupation of obstruction of performance of official duties and the choice of imprisonment);

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes as provided for in the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following factors favorable to the accused among the reasons for sentencing);

1. The Defendant asserts that the determination of the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act, Articles 59 and 62 of the Probation Act was based on the following facts: (a) the Defendant was in the process of taking the medicine of the mental and system at the time of the instant crime; and (b) the Defendant had reached a weak level of ability to discern things or make decisions.

According to the evidence of the judgment, the defendant.