Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

around 03:40 on October 5, 2017, the Defendant: (a) received a report of assault from C on the first floor of the building B, and was asked by C about the developments of assault, etc.; (b) “I were able to take care of the police officer who was sent to the police officer.” (c) I were able to take care of the police officer who was forced to take care of the police officer to take care of the police officer’s arms and blue the blue with blue and blue the blue of the police officer in order to take care of the police officer to take care of the police officer’s blue.

이어 피고인은 같은 날 04:00 경 경기 시흥시 D에 있는 시흥 경찰서 E 파출소로 보호조치 된 이후에도 그 곳 경찰관들에게 " 병신새끼들 아, 씨 발 놈들 아. "라고 욕설을 하였고, 피고 인의 119 대원들과 함께 피고인의 응급 처치를 도와주고 있던 경찰공무원 F의 다리를 발로 걷어찼다.

As a result, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning police officers' criminal investigations and maintenance of order in a lawsuit.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement with respect to C and F;

1. Investigation Report - Application of the legislation to the cellphone images

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment concerning the facts constituting the crime, and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

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

1. In light of the motive and background of the instant crime for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, method of the crime, and the anti-social nature of the instant crime that interfered with the legitimate performance of duties by police officers concerning criminal investigation, etc., although the nature of the crime is not less than that of the instant crime, the Defendant was a primary offender with no criminal history, and the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol to the extent that he is unable to memory his contents of the crime, and thereby, led to the instant crime by contingency, and the degree of interference with official duties is relatively minor.