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

On December 11, 2013, at around 19:30 on December 11, 2013, the Defendant was sent to the C Hospital Emergency Office in Daejeon Jung-gu by the Jung-gu Samsung 119 Emergency Team.

The Defendant, at the same time in C Hospital emergency room, expressed his desire to “Il, Chewing,” and obsesses and obsesses to “Il, Chewing,” during about 50 minutes, and interfered with the medical care of the doctor and nurse of the above hospital by force.

In order to continuously refrain from interfering with the defendant's business, three persons, such as security guards D (25 years old) of the above hospital, went out of the emergency room, and the police officer called into the emergency room without hearing about the defendant's restraint, leaving the emergency room in order to prevent the defendant from interfering with the defendant's business, and doing physical fighting again, and damaged the property by cutting off the rubber gate of the emergency room at the market price.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. On-site photographs and CCTV pages;

1. Before judgment: Daejeon District Court Decision 2013Ma5043, 2014Ma332 (Joint) Decided April 24, 2014; Supreme Court Decision 2014Ma332 (Joint) and the application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on the search of cases;

1. Article 314 (1) and Article 366 of the Criminal Act and the choice of fines for the crime;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

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

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the defendant has the same criminal records, and it is inevitable to strictly punish him.

However, the defendant is led to confession and is in profoundly against himself, and the crime of this case is in the concurrent relationship between the previous conviction of the judgment and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

In this context, considering all the circumstances such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, and circumstances after the crime, the punishment is determined as ordered.