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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

At around 16:00 on April 2, 2013, the Defendant demanded that 50,000 won be paid for the livelihood security of the Gangseo-gu Seoul Northern District Office and the emergency living cost of 192-59, which is paid to basic recipients at the office of Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul. However, the Defendant was refused to pay 50,000 won for the living cost of the basic recipients, such as the reduction of the bank service hours from the person in charge C, with the intention of threatening the public officials.

At around 16:40 of the same day, the Defendant, at the convenience store located in front of the Seoul Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office, putting a small can can can, once again, entered the above Gu office’s livelihood security and office, and, at the public official C, D, etc., who is a public official in charge of livelihood security and affiliated with the above Gu office, threatened the above public official by taking advantage of his head and body, putting gasoline on a disposable dog, which is a dangerous object, and breaking it into the body, and threatening the above public official.

Accordingly, the Defendant carried dangerous articles and interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the payment of basic living expenses, such as C and D, who are public officials of the Seoul Gangseo-gu Office.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. A criminal investigation report (victim's additional statement hearing report);

1. An investigation report (to hear statements of victims C);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on seizure records;

1. Articles 144(1) and 136(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting the crime;

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 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act to be confiscated;

1. As to the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant and the defense counsel alleged that the Defendant was in a state that the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to the on-site illness, and the record reveals that the Defendant diagnosed the on-site illness on April 22, 2013.