Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

At around 22:20 on September 15, 2013, the Defendant: (a) committed assault against a police official’s legitimate performance of official duties regarding the crime of police officials, by talking that “Is that I would like to kill F when I would like to read F when I would like to read that F would be a habitual offender,” because I would like to read that I would like to read “Iss would be a police officer,” and that I would like to read that Is would like to read “Iss would be a habitual offender,” and that I would like to read “Is would like to read Is would be a police officer,” and that I would like to read “Is would like to read Is would be in accordance with the balnesnese part.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of each of the testimony laws and subordinate statutes to witness F and D;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment for the crime: Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act and the selection of fines;

1. Attraction of a workhouse: Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Provisional payment order: The punishment shall be determined as ordered in consideration of all the following circumstances as the reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act: The fact that a crime is recognized, the degree of violence is not serious, the primary crime without previous conviction, and other parts of rejection of prosecution such as the motive, circumstances, and circumstances after the crime are committed:

1. 공소사실의 요지 피고인은 2013. 9. 15. 22:20경 서귀포시 중앙동 255-9에 있는 ‘해와 달’ 단란주점 앞 노상에서 피해자 F의 멱살을 잡아 벽에 밀어붙이고 주먹으로 때리려는 시늉을 하는 등 피해자를 폭행하였다.

2. The above facts charged cannot be punished against the victim’s express intent under Article 260(3) of the Criminal Act. Since the victim expressed his/her intention that he/she would not want the punishment of the defendant while attending the second trial of April 8, 2014, the victim expressed his/her intention that he/she would not want to give testimony, the prosecution on this part is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparag. 6

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.