Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,500,000.

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

Criminal facts

At around 22:30 on October 15, 2017, the Defendant: (a) arrested a flagrant offender as a person subject to forced indecent act by a police officer belonging to the police station located in the Namnam-gu, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-do Police Station C District District; and (b) arrested the victim of the said forced indecent act by the police officer, and escorted him to the police agency; (c) the police officer attempted to leave the scene of the said forced indecent act by carrying out the patrol vehicle, he would be able to prevent the front of the patrol vehicle and force the police officer to go off the patrol vehicle; and (d) the police officer, who is the police officer belonging to the said district group, instructed him to return home several times, and recommended him to go home, but rather, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the investigation of the police officer, by assaulting the police officer by taking advantage of his desire to return to E and boom his finger, etc.; and (d) interfere with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the criminal case.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of the Act and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation and a report on investigation (vehicle black images);

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. In addition to the motive and circumstance of obstructing the execution of official duties for the sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the degree of interference with the performance of official duties was not easy, and thus, was exposed to the victim in the patrol vehicle. The defendant has expressed repeatedly the criminal intent at the time of the police investigation, and there was only two times a fine due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act in the previous case.