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

On August 2, 2014, at around 19:00, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol in front of Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and was dispatched to the I Hospital located in the Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, by the fire officer E in Seoul, by the F and G, and by the first-aid vehicle.

The Defendant, without any reason in the first-aid vehicle moving to I Hospital, took a bath for fire fighting officials F and G, served as drinking to F, and assaulted the said G’s chest and right shoulder to walk.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning F and G life-saving and first aid as fire officials.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Written statements of the F, G and J;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (related to CCTV images inside 119 ambulances);

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime concerned;

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

1. Selection of a selective fine for punishment (such as the fact that there is no past record of criminal punishment against the defendant, the fact that both the damaged public officials have agreed smoothly, and the depth of the sentence is against each other);

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted as to the assertion of the defendant and defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order. The defendant asserts that the defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disorder under the influence of alcohol at the time of each crime

In light of the evidence and records, although the defendant was found to have her drinking at the time of each of the crimes of this case, it cannot be seen that the defendant lost or weak ability to discern things or make decisions. Thus, the above assertion by the defendant and the defense counsel is not acceptable.