On August 20, 2016, around 21:10 on August 20, 2016, the Defendant received a report from the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government “C” (hereinafter referred to as “C”) on the front side of the “C” in Guro-gu, Seoul, and sent back to the site the background, E, security guards, and patrolmen, who are police officers belonging to the Seoul Guro Police Station D District, sent out to the site, expressed the Defendant’s desire to the said G, while drinking the Defendant at one time.

At around 21:30 on the same day, the Defendant continuously reported 112 that a guest was written at the said place and attempted to contact the Defendant’s seat, the police officer E, guards E, guards F, and patrolmen belonging to the Seoul Guro Police Station D District, who was called to the scene of the vehicle, and the Defendant tried to contact the Defendant’s seat, making the said G three times of drinking, and her left part of the said E one time of drinking son.

Accordingly, the defendant assaulted with police officers G and E, thereby obstructing police officers' legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of 112 reported cases, and the protection of people's lives, bodies, and property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement to G and E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing suspect field photographs;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act selecting a penalty;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion under Articles 40 and 50 of the Commercial Act, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.

However, comprehensively taking account of the circumstances such as the background and method of the instant crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime, which was acknowledged by the evidence as seen earlier, there was no ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol.

not seem to have existed in or weak condition.

Defendant’s assertion is not accepted.

The defendant who is the reason for sentencing is the confession of the crime of this case.

However, this case assaults the head and the part of the police officer in the process of performing official duties.