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

On October 19, 2014, at around 00:20, the Defendant, at around 50 meters prior to the Drymnasium in Sinsan City, was under the influence of alcohol, at around 50 meters, a male f (38 years old) on his name and f (38 years old) on the road at the center of the road, and was under the influence of alcohol, on the ground that the police box belonging to the Busan Police Station Emba, which found the Defendant during the patrol duty, was under the influence of alcohol, and that he was located at one time in the face of F.

As a result, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties of police officers F patrol, and at the same time, the victim F was in need of medical treatment for about one week.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. A medical certificate;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to public officials' identification cards and work place;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes (Punishment on which the punishment is heavier than that of an injury);

1. Selection of a selective fine (including the fact that agreement has been reached with the victim police officer and the fact that the damage has not been serious);

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant and defense counsel's assertion on the assertion of the defendant and defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act are asserted to the effect that the defendant was in a state of mental disorder under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case. Thus, according to the above evidence, it cannot be seen that the defendant was aware of drinking at the time of the crime of this case, but it does not have the ability to discern things or make decisions. Thus, the above argument is rejected.