The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Punishment of the crime

1. On March 19, 2019, at around 17:28, the Defendant damaged the property by leaving three guidances on the outer wall of the above restaurant owned by the victim, in order for the people using the above restaurant on the street in front of the “Ccafeteria” located in Ulsanju B to report the urine without permission from the Defendant’s office located in the above cafeteria, and to display a complaint about the parking.

2. On March 19, 2019, at around 17:28, the Defendant obstructed the police officer’s legitimate execution of duties concerning the duty of handling the 112 reported case by assaulting him, such as: F of the police box belonging to the Ulsan Police Station Emba, who was dispatched after receiving the said D’s 112 report at the above Cmba, and questioning him/her of the circumstances leading up to the damage and damage of the said property from G; and booming him/her; and booming him/her of his/her body on several occasions; and booming him/her of his/her body on several occasions;

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of the police statement related to F and D;

1. (Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a photographic;

1. Articles 366 and 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and the proviso of Article 50 and Article 42 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (the suspended sentence: the detention in the workhouse for a period calculated by converting fine of two million won or more in unpaid time into one day) of the suspension of sentence (the detention in the workhouse for a period calculated by converting fine of one million won or more in unpaid time) of the reason for sentencing, and the defendant and his defense counsel asserted to the effect that the crime of destruction is not established by the defendant's act alone. However, in light of the fact that the subjective and emotional factors of the customers inside the crime are the outer wall of the restaurant building where the subjective and visual factors of the customers in the crime are emphasized and the point at which the act was conducted was during the restaurant business hours, it is reasonable to deem that the damage in the outer wall part of the restaurant building caused by the defendant's act was insignificant