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

1. From September 5, 2017, the Defendant violated the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act: (a) around 04:25, 2017, at the front of the Seoul Military Manpower Administration located in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul Military Manpower Administration, located in 13-lane 43-gil; (b) while having arrived at a destination using the E-tax driven by D, the Defendant did not pay a taxi fee of KRW 20,000 while under the influence of alcohol.

As such, the Defendant used a commercial vehicle and failed to pay a value without good cause.

2. On September 5, 2017, around 04:35, the Defendant was urged to pay a taxi fee to G from a police officer belonging to the Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu Police StationF District of Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, to return home, and pay a taxi fee to the said G, even though he was urged to pay a taxi fee to the said G, when D as described in paragraph (1) was 13-gil to the Seoul Military Manpower Administration located in the area of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul Military Manpower Administration, which was located in 43-lane 13, a 13-lane of the Defendant’s shouldering with the Defendant’s shouldering hand.

Along with talking about drinking, G was 3 times on the part of G and the part of chest.

As such, the Defendant assaulted a police officer G and interfered with legitimate performance of duties concerning G crime prevention, investigation, maintenance of order, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statements made to D and G;

1. Relevant provisions of the Act on the Punishment of Minor Offenses, Article 3(1)39 (a) of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act (a point of payment of taxi fares), Article 136(1) (a) (a point of obstructing the performance of official duties) of the Criminal Act, and the selection of fines for each crime;

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. The defense counsel’s assertion on the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserts that the punishment should be mitigated on the ground that the defendant was in a state of mental and physical weakness by drinking at the time of committing the crime.

According to the records, it is recognized that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime of this case.