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

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

Punishment of the crime

피고인은 2017. 2. 13. 01:25 경 위 주점에서 112 신고를 받고 출동한 인천 남동경찰서 C 지구대 소속 경찰관인 경사 D, 순경 E로부터 위와 같은 폭행죄로 인하여 현행범으로 체포되게 되자, 위 경찰관들에게 “ 야, 씨 발 놈 아, 내가 뭘 잘못했어

”라고 욕설을 하면서 위 순경 E의 얼굴에 침을 뱉고, 오른발로 위 경사 D의 오른쪽 정강이 부위를 2회 걷어찼다.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties by police officers in criminal investigations.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

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

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. Based on the grounds for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the sentencing conditions specified in the trial process of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, family relation, family relationship, home environment, motive and means of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the sentence is determined as ordered.

A favorable condition: The defendant led to the confession of the crime of this case and reflects his mistake.

There is no record of punishment for interference with the performance of official duties in the past.

Unfavorable circumstances: The defendant has previously been punished by imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment.

It is necessary to severely punish police officers in order to enhance national confidence in the conduct of public duties.

Rejection of Public Prosecution

1. On February 13, 2017, the Defendant, at the main point of “G” located in the Namdong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City F, around 01:20 on February 13, 2017, expressed a desire to take the part of the victim H (33 tax) who was a customer who found the place without any justifiable reason under the influence of alcohol. As the Defendant was informed of the victim’s face from the victim, the Defendant assaulted the victim’s face by drinking.

2. Determination

A. The crime of non-violation of will: the Criminal Act.