If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

On June 22, 2016, at around 06:00, the Defendant, under the influence of alcohol on the front side of the Haakwon located in Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, 179, was urged to return home from C to a police officer in the Seoul Yongsan Police Station B police box called to the site for returning home to the home. On June 22, 2016, the Defendant: (a) the victimized police officer C, without any reason, attempted to put up the Defendant on his house in order to cover the Defendant’s belongings; and (b) the Defendant, without any reason, assaulted the police officer’s skebbbbbbbbs, etc. once by sending the damaged police officer’s buck.

As a result, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the protection of police officers' bodies and property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of each police statement regarding C;

1. A witness's statement;

1. Application of statutes on photographs of damage;

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

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 are the primary offenders of sentencing, the background leading up to the crime, Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, etc. The Defendant’s assertion asserts to the effect that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant case, and that the Defendant was in the state of mental disorder or mental disorder.

According to the records, although the defendant could be recognized that he was drinking at the time of the crime of this case, in light of the circumstances leading to the crime of this case, the means and method of the crime, and the defendant's speech and behavior before and after the crime of this case, the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case

Since it cannot be deemed that there was a state or weak, the above assertion is rejected.