A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six 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 November 2, 2018, the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties: (a) around 23:28, 2018; (b) at his own residence, the Defendant reported 112 that the Defendant avoided the disturbance of the attached goods; (c) sent to the C police station affiliated with the C police station; (d) the Defendant disclosed the developments of the call; and (e) the Defendant multi-usered the Defendant, “I must do so”; (c) pushed the chest part of the said D’s breast part by hand; (d) the Defendant was sealed by the Defendant’s chest part on his hand; and (e) the Defendant was arrested as the current offender who interfered with the performance of official duties and carried out the duties of police officers in relation to the handling of reported cases and arrest of flagrant offenders, thereby hindering the Defendant’s legitimate performance of duties.

2. On November 2, 2018, around 23:30, the Defendant: (a) arrested a flagrant offender for the same reason as described in paragraph (1) and caused him to board the F patrol vehicle; (b) took a bath on the back of the patrol vehicle; and (c) damaged things used by public offices by breaking the back glass of the front left of the patrol vehicle.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to D or E;

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 136 (1) and Article 141 (1) of the Criminal Act (a point of obstructing the performance of official duties) concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of each sentence 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. The contents of the crime committed by assaulting and destroying patrol cars to police officers performing official duties for the reason of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act are not good.

However, all of the crimes are recognized by the defendant and they are against the defendant, and the punishment shall be determined as ordered in consideration of various circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment, motive and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.