Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

No person shall interfere with the rescue, transfer, emergency treatment, or medical treatment of emergency patients by persons engaged in emergency medical services.

Nevertheless, around May 28, 2016, the Defendant assaulted the employees engaged in emergency medical services and interfered with medical treatment in the D Emergency Hospital located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (n, 31 years of age) at the D Emergency Hospital located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on one occasion with the Defendant’s hand.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant (the first trial date);

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of statutes to the results of the reproduction and viewing of video CDs;

1. Article 60(1)1 and 12 of the pertinent Act on criminal facts and Article 60(1)2 of the Emergency Medical Service Act on the Selection of Punishment, etc. [This case’s applicable Act is a provision punishing a person who interferes with “emergency medical services”, and “emergency medical services” under the above provision includes measures such as consultation for emergency patients pursuant to Article 2(2) of the same Act.

In addition, it is sufficient that an actor is aware of the risk or possibility of hindering the performance of duties of emergency medical services due to his act, and in the formation of the crime, it is sufficient that the result of emergency medical services interference is not actually generated, and the risk of causing the result of the interference is sufficient.

Therefore, this crime is established as long as the risk of impeding the performance of emergency medical services is generated even if the defendant's guardian and the victim, etc. who was under consultation with his/her guardian, etc., who was in an emergency room.

B. Considering the various circumstances in which the defendant asserts, it is difficult to see that such an act is reasonable in the means and method, and it was an urgent and inevitable means for a prompt request for medical treatment.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the defendant's act constitutes a violation of the Emergency Medical Service Act and Article 20 of the Criminal Act.