1. On July 11, 2015, the Defendant observed that the police officers belonging to the Namyang Police Station B District District, who were located in the Namyang Police Station B District, were present at the site to interfere with the police officers’ performance of their duties and committed the act of the said C at the time of five times, and assaulted the victim D (19 years of age, son) who committed the said act around the police officer’s surrounding area at the time of 30 times.

2. Around 05:00 on July 11, 2015, the Defendant: (a) reported that the Defendant talks about the victim E (the 19-year-old and the 62-year-old taxi located in the southyang-si, the Namyang-si, the Namyang-si, and that she talks about the 19-year-old taxi located in the 62-year-old taxi area; and (b) reported that “Fins have taken drinking anywhere to drink,” the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim’s hand floor, such as the scambling and the scamboo, which requires approximately 14 days of treatment days, by putting sc

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of E and D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the injury diagnosis certificate;

1. Relevant Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act and the selection of fines for the crime;

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 (in cases of conversion of KRW 100,000 per day) of the Criminal Act into a workhouse;

1. It seems that the defendant's act on the grounds of sentencing under Article 59 (1) of the Criminal Code (a grace period: a fine of one million won) of the suspended sentence is not generally justified, and the defendant's act should be held liable for it.

However, the crime of this case was derived from the motive to admonish the victim under the influence of alcohol against police officers who exercise public authority and the victim's age, and the victim's attitude at the time was also deemed to have been the cause of the defendant's violent act, and all responsibility is limited to the defendant.