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

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

Punishment of the crime

(2) On August 22, 2020, the Defendant returned his identification card to D before the police box located in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City on August 17, 2020, and demanded the return of his identification card to D before the police box in Seoul Special Metropolitan City on August 22, 2020. In order to grasp the situation of the security guard E, the Defendant took the brupt of the police box outside of the above police box, and took the brush of “I saw I am before and after the towing. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am.).”

As a result, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers on civil petition affairs.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Investigation report (Analysis of visual images of on-site CCTV);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a visual closure photograph;

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of fines, and the choice of fines;

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. Scope of punishment by law: A fine not exceeding 10 million won;

2. Non-application of the sentencing guidelines: The sentencing guidelines are not applicable as the person has selected a fine: 3. The crime of this case, which is a fine of 4 million won, prevents the Defendant from performing his/her duties by exercising violence against the police officer in charge of civil petition affairs, and the liability for the crime is not minor.

In particular, the Defendant committed the instant crime even though there was a criminal record of four times of fines due to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, injury, or assault from November 2000 to May 2018.

On the other hand, the defendant seems to be against the defendant, recognizing the crime of this case.

It is difficult to view that the degree of the obstruction of the performance of official duties of this case is hot.

The defendant is the second degree of intellectual disability, and the defendant seems to support the old age of 85 even if he is under economic difficulty as a recipient of basic living benefits.

There is no criminal history exceeding a fine for the accused.