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

While the Defendant was carrying on a coloring business for children protection zone B, the Defendant was aware that a member of the City Council was deprived of part of his own business.

1. C에 대한 공무집행방해 부분 피고인은 2014. 11. 7. 15:25경 D에 있는 E시의회 건물에 술에 취해 찾아가, 현관에서 “B 담당 시의원이 누구야 이 씹할 놈, 내가 들어간다!”라고 큰소리를 지르며 소란을 피우고, 이에 E시청 소속 무기계약직 공무원인 청원경찰 C으로부터 제지당하자, C에게 “이 새끼 날 무시하냐 ”라고 욕설을 하며 발로 피해자의 다리를 1회 찼다.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the protection of the office building of the police assigned for special guard belonging to the City Council.

2. F에 대한 공무집행방해 부분 피고인은 2014. 11. 7. 15:30경 위 시의회건물 3층 본회의장 입구 복도에서 계속하여 소란을 피우던 중, E시청 의정 담당계장인 F로부터 “회의 중이니까 소란을 피우시면 안 됩니다”라는 말을 듣자, F에게 “너는 뭐하는 놈이야 ”라고 욕설을 하며 발로 F의 옆구리를 1회 찼다.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the parliamentary operation of the City Council Chairperson.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of each police protocol of statement to C and F

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 136 of the same Act concerning the applicable criminal facts, the choice of fines;

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

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

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, along with the background of the sentencing case, degree of damage, reflects the fact that there are many violence incidents, and considering the fact that the damaged public officials do not want the punishment of the defendant, the circumstances favorable to the fact that there is no previous violence, and taking into account other circumstances, including the defendant’s age, character, conduct and environment.