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

1. Around November 28, 2015, the Defendant obstructed the performance of official duties: (a) around 01:30 on the street of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government; (b) on the 112 notification that the vehicle owned by C is emitted from the vehicle, and was sent to C, the border E belonging to the Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu Police Station D District Unit, Seoul, which was called to stop this; (c) he saw E; (d) took a bath for E; and (e) took off E’s her mother and child on the floor; and (e) took a bath for E’s e, e, after drinking.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties regarding the suppression of police officers' crimes.

2. On November 28, 2015, around 03:10 on November 28, 2015, the Defendant damaged goods used in a district unit for official business by making the d district unit located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, to take a bath, and attaching inside the pipe, the market price of which cannot be known on the earth wall, to drink back.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement protocol with respect to E and C;

1. G statements;

1. The notification of the department related to the report of the case 112 case, the photograph of damage to public goods, the log of D District Work, the log of work for D District Work (B), the investigation report (the telephone conversations of a wooden person), and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the investigation report (the confirmation of terrestrial CCTV images);

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts;

(a) point of obstructing the performance of official duties: Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act;

(b) The point of damages to public goods: Article 141 (1) of the Criminal Act.

1. Selection of each alternative fine for punishment (the following circumstances shall be considered):

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. The crime was committed against police officers on the grounds of sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, and the liability for the crime was not exceptionally imposed on the police officers due to the failure to recover the damage up to the present. However, the crime was an contingent crime under the influence of alcohol, the confession and a serious reflect on the crime in this court, the recovery of the victimized police officers by discovering the police officers, and the restoration of the damaged public goods to their original state, and the suspension of indictment is still imposed on the students.