Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

At around 02:45 on May 24, 2014, the Defendant was able to enjoy on the street in front of the Domoel in the House C, and the Defendant was able to take a bath for the Defendant to return home, and the slope F belonging to the E District of the Gu Police Station E District of the Gu Police Station called upon upon receipt of a report, was able to take a bath for the said F to return home, and the left end of the said F was able to walk up twice due to the outbreak, and G was able to take a bath for the horses, and he was able to take the face of the said G by drinkingly.

Accordingly, the defendant assaulted F and G, thereby obstructing the legitimate execution of duties concerning the maintenance of police officers' order.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. A statement prepared by the F;

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime concerned;

1. A multiple crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties are established according to the number of public officials who perform the same official duties in the case of assault and intimidation against multiple public officials who perform the same official duties. The above crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties are committed at the same place where the act of assault and intimidation was committed in the same opportunity at the same place, and where the act of assault and intimidation is assessed as one act under the concept of society, multiple crimes of obstruction of official duties are in a relation of conceptual concurrence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505, Jun. 25, 2009).

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Selection of a selective fine for punishment (such as the fact that the defendant living for 67 years and was sentenced to a fine of 20,000 won due to a violation of the Establishment of Homeland Reserve Forces Act in 1980 and a fine of 200,000 won due to a violation of the Building Act in 1982; the crime of this case seems to have occurred by drinking rather than the expression of violent inclination; the confession of and reflect against the crime, etc.);

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

1. The dismissal part of the prosecution under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Summary of the facts charged