Defendant shall be punished by a fine of four million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

On May 19, 2018, at the main point of “D” located at the permanent residence of 05:00 on May 19, 2018, the Defendant: (a) performed a flab, etc. after drinking alcohol; and (b) received a 112 report, the Defendant sent the police box to the said site and taken measures to have him returned to the Defendant.

After that, there is a defect that F and G are trying to drive the patrol vehicle in front of the above week, and the defendant laid the front of the patrol vehicle in his body, laid the front of the patrol vehicle, sited on the top of the patrol vehicle, and was seated on the top of the patrol vehicle.

G, upon the her getting off, assaulted the above F and G, such as interfering with the progress of the patrol vehicle, by standing in the chief of the patrol vehicle.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning 112 reporting handling duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing the handling of photographs, copies of work logs, and reported cases under 112;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Although the ordinary concurrent prosecutor was prosecuted for the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties, in light of the Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505 Decided June 25, 2009, it seems that the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties against each police officer is in the relationship of ordinary concurrence.

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act

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. The Defendant asserts to the effect that he was in a physical and mental state under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, as to the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, although the defendant was found to have her drinking at the time of the crime of this case, it does not seem that the defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to alcohol at the time, in light of the circumstances and contents of the crime of this case.

Therefore, the defendant and his defense counsel's above assertion.