A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six 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

1. On January 8, 2016, at around 21:50 around 21:50, the Defendant: (a) destroyed the Defendant’s property by breaking the singing-out devices monitoring and microphones in three rooms in C, which were located in the G, G, Nam-gun, G, and thereby damaging the Defendant’s property by putting the said monitors and microphones at the same time, which are owned by the victim D, with a total of KRW 565,00,00.

2. The Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties at the time and place specified in Paragraph 1 above, and “a person under the influence of alcohol frank in the place of business.”

“The police officer F of the police box affiliated with the relevant police box of the relevant police station where he/she carried out upon the report that he/she was “,” did assault F’s f’s bat and head f’s f’s f’s bat and head f’s f’s f’s fat with the right drinking.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the maintenance of police officers' order and handling of reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. A statement prepared by the F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (a written estimate attached);

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act and Article 366 of the Criminal Act (the point of destroying property, the choice of imprisonment), and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of failing to perform public duties, and the choice of imprisonment);

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. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act is that the defendant is subject to criminal punishment due to a crime obstructing the performance of official duties similar to this case, and that the defendant seems to have a high possibility of drinking in the future and again committing similar crimes, etc. are disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant is in profoundly against his own crime, and the victims of the crime of this case have recovered from all the damages, and the defendant has no criminal record of suspended execution or more is favorable to the defendant.

In each of the above circumstances, the age, sex, occupation and environment of the defendant, and each of the above cases.