Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

On August 3, 2017, at around 00:20, the Defendant’s road in front of the Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul 3 Seoul Arts Center, “A male is taking women’s care of women” was reported and sent to the site by 112, and confirmed the Defendant’s wife D’s identity being used on the roadside by the 119 first aid staff C, who was called to the site, and called “a place of inconvenience.”

“Isker C above, “Isker’s Chewing, Iskn’t do so. Iskn’t do so.

"I am a bath, walking a part of the neck one time, and stop the police officer F of the police box belonging to the Seoul Hyung Police Station E-Sa Police Station, who was dispatched to the scene after having received a report," and the above police officer G of the above police box, who was next to the police officer, would be able to immediately memory the police officer G of the above police box without any justifiable reason. I am saw that I will die.

"The Domination of "," and assaulted the body of the person, such as being sealed by the person's hand and booming the person's drinking.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by the police officers on the 119 emergency rescue crew members and the 112 reported case.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. Application of the Act on Videos and Investigation Report at the scene of victim shooting;

1. Article 136(1)1 of the Criminal Act in relation to the crime; Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the ordinary concurrent crimes;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is flexible - The circumstances leading up to the crime (the fire officer and the police officer, who was dispatched after being reported by the defendant due to his or her awareness of his or her unknownness and damage, seems to have committed the instant crime in order to mislead and prevent the misunderstanding that he or she or the police officer committed the instant crime to attack his or her denial). The degree of damage (the degree of damage was not significant since the defendant's son was living together the defendant at the time of the instant case).