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

On February 10, 2016, around 02:25, the Defendant was arrested as a current offender of assault by a police officer belonging to the Gangnam-gu Seoul Northern Police Station, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, who called up after receiving a report from a customer who fashed tobacco, and was called up as a “C” main office located in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, the Defendant was arrested as a current offender of assault by the police officer who was called up after receiving a report from the customer.

At around 02:50 on the same day, the Defendant sent this Defendant to the F Hospital, who was a victim E (32) who was a member of the Gangnam Fire Station D belonging to the Gangnam-gu Fire Station D, called for 119 emergency medical service and was called out after receiving 119 reports at the above U.S. District Office 02:50 on the same day.

The Defendant, at around 03:00 on the same day, was sitting over the beds in the first-aid vehicle in transit, and was assaulted by the Defendant, i.e., “g., g., g.,” “g., g.,” “g., g.,” “g., g., g.,” “g., g.,” “g.,” and “g., g.,”

The Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of fire officials with respect to emergency medical services, and at the same time, got a victim to be treated for about two weeks.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing 119 first-aid vehicle boxes and video CDs;

1. Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties) and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. On the Defendant’s assertion of Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the Defendant was in a state of mental or physical loss or mental weakness under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.

In light of various circumstances, such as the background and means of the instant crime, the details of the crime, and the Defendant’s behavior before and after the instant crime, which are acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, the Defendant was able to discern things under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime.