A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On August 31, 2016, the Defendant: (a) refused to use another taxi on the street prior to the departure of No. 1244-1 Digital Media City, Mapo-gu, Seoul, 124-32, 201; (b) refused to use the taxi at the time of receiving a report from 112 by a taxi engineer who was called up after receiving a report of 112 from the police box belonging to the Seoul Mapo-gu, Mapo-gu, Seoul; and (c) refused to use the other taxi by the police box belonging to the police box belonging to the Seoul Mapo-gu Police Station C, Seoul; and

Then, the police officer’s 112 report handling of the police officer’s 112 report handling by assaulting the police officer, citing a portable phone and booming the above D’s arms in the process of being taken by hand, again pushing the said D’s chest by hand, thereby obstructing the police officer’s legitimate execution of duties.

2. The Defendant destroyed property damage, at the same time and place as indicated in the preceding paragraph, by unloading from the victim D’s arms citing a portable phone for the aforementioned reasons, and destroying the victim’s mobile phone at a price equivalent to one million won in the market value, which is the victim’s possession, by destroying the victim’s cell phone at the bottom.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. E statements;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on photographs destroying mobile phones;

1. Relevant Article 136 of the Criminal Act, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties), Article 366 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for each crime;

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. As to the Defendant’s and defense counsel’s assertion under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended sentence (a favorable circumstance for sentencing as follows) and Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, the Defendant and defense counsel had a mental and physical weak condition under the influence of alcohol

Therefore, according to the records of this case, the defendant's drinking is recognized as a drinking fact at the time, but considering the circumstances and contents of each of the crimes of this case, the defendant's speech and behavior before and after the crime, etc., the defendant's drinking will change the right and wrong due to drinking.