When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

1. On March 23, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 20:30 on the front side of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, imposed alcohol on E and trial expenses, a substitute driver, at the front side of Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government D; (b) when receiving 112 reports, the Defendant was under the control of G (the age 46) for the seat of the F Zone at the Seoul Yeongdeungpo Police Station, which called the “F Zone” (the age 46). As such, the Defendant assaulted the said G by taking a bath against the said G on one hand, while taking the bath.

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

2. The Defendant damaged public goods, at the time and at the place described in the preceding paragraph, assaulted G, such as the time and location described in the preceding paragraph, the Defendant broken down the sunlight of 25,000 won in the market value attached to the back door of the patrol car No. 11, which was parked in the said area, to the right side of the patrol car owned by the said district.

As a result, the Defendant damaged the patrol car, which is the object used by public offices, to be 25,00 won repair cost, such as the replacement of sunlight lights.

Summary of Evidence

1. Witnesses G and E respective legal statements;

1. Part of the protocol concerning the examination of the suspect against the defendant;

1. Statement of the police statement related H;

1. Application of statutes on photographs of damage;

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 141 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing performance of official duties and the choice of fines) concerning the crime;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, even though the Defendant had been punished several times in the past, committed each of the crimes in this case. In this court, the Defendant denied the crime and did not repent of the mistake.

However, in consideration of the fact that the defendant seems to have committed each of the crimes in this case by contingency, the degree of obstruction of performance of official duties is relatively minor, the value of the damaged articles is considerably small, and the defendant has no criminal record for the same kind of crime, the punishment shall be determined as per the order.