Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On June 10, 2015, at around 21:50, the Defendant: (a) was crossing C department stores located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-do; (b) was exposed to the police officer F of the Ulsan Central Police Station Escoping Police Station, who was working for traffic control, and was exposed to G, and the police officer attempted to impose penalty due to the unauthorized crossing of the said D; (c) the Defendant obstructed the police officer’s front of the police officer; (d) obstructed the imposition of the penalty while blocking the police officer’s “Ispophing,” and (d) G was at the time of two times the head of G with the defective floor to prove the Defendant’s suspicion of obstruction of the performance of official duties.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on traffic control, and at the same time inflicted two-day injuries on G police officers, such as two-time medical care.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. A H statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on request for investigation cooperation;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act;

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 order to establish the legal order and order of the country with reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and eradicate the light of public authority, Defendant should be punished strictly.

However, the defendant shall be sentenced to a fine, in consideration of the fact that there is no criminal record other than punishment once, and that there is no criminal record of the same kind, the crime of this case appears to have been committed contingent while under the influence of alcohol, and the fact that it is against the order.