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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

On June 11, 2015, at around 04:25, the Defendant received a 112 report stating that “the Defendant was sexually indecent act from the franchiser,” and was investigated by the police officer F, a police officer affiliated with the Seoul Yongsan Police Station Estation, who was a police officer affiliated with the Seoul Yongsan Police Station Estation, and was going to know about the 112 report, etc., on the ground that he was under investigation by the Defendant, and the unsatisf who was going to go behind the Defendant was unsatured, the Defendant was able to check the above unsatisfying of the Defendant, and the Defendant was asked from F several times according to the unsatisf.

Therefore, while the Defendant was dissatisfied with F, he prevented F from standing in front of the defective patrol vehicle about to return to the patrol lane after the end of the situation, and lost F’s arms, and F’s hand, such as cutting off the cell phone from the defective F’s hand to take the cell phone to collect evidence, and returning it to F’s hand.

On the other hand, the Defendant continued to have a slope G, a police officer who belongs to the same police box, opened the patrol car driver's seat in order to walk the police box, and opened his own body with the patrol car driver's seat, and opened the key.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the dispatch of 112 reported police officers and the handling of civil petition affairs.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. A written statement of the G production;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on investigation reports (related to the handling of 112 reported indecent acts by compulsion);

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 an alternative fine for punishment;

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

1. In light of the reasons for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant’s liability is not less than that of the instant crime, on the other hand, the Defendant committed the instant crime in contingency under the influence of alcohol, and the Defendant’s previous convictions for a fine once.