If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

1. On July 13, 2018, the Defendant intruded into a structure managed by the victim E, such as a person who opened the office of the first floor executive of D underground in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government without permission, from around 09:30 on the same day.

2. On July 13, 2018, at around 09:40, the Defendant obstructed the police officer’s legitimate performance of official duties, such as taking a bath at the D underground parking lot as indicated in paragraph (1) of this Article, and obstructing the police officer’s 112 notification handling of the 112 report, by arresting the Defendant at a flagrant offender at the seat of the police station in Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, a police station, who was called up after receiving a report of 112 during the disturbance, by arresting him/her to a flagrant offender at the lower seat of the patrol vehicle, and walking off the patrol vehicle at the front seat of the patrol vehicle in order to close the back door of the patrol vehicle.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement protocol with respect to E and G;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to a investigative report (Attachment to a photograph ofCCTV images).

1. Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime in question (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties), Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of intrusion on a structure) and selection of fines, respectively;

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. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. As to the assertion of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the provisional payment order, the defense counsel at the time when the defendant committed the crime was in a mental and physical state due to depression.

The argument is asserted.

According to the above evidence, the Defendant appears to have been under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime. Meanwhile, according to the medical certificate written by the Defendant, the Defendant is recognized as having received medical treatment from around January 2018, but does not seem to have reached the point where the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions, and thus, the above assertion by the defense counsel is rejected.