beta
Text
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.
When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On December 6, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 00:10, around 00:10, while driving a D observer car driven by C on the front of the Gyeonggi-si, Gwangju-si, there was an accident that the said car was receiving a central separation stand in that place.
Since then, on December 6, 2015, the Defendant reported around 00:30 on December 6, 2015 and called up to 112, the police officer F of the Gyeonggi Police Station E box affiliated with the Gyeonggi Police Station E commander of the Gyeonggi Police Station attempted to measure drinking against the above Party F, and whether the Defendant “the Defendant spawns, spawns, and spawn out,”
Republic of Korea N.N. N.N.
The F's body was tightly pushed by the sound "I am well," and the body of F was pushed by the hand.
Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties by police officers.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Statement of the police suspect by the defendant;
1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;
1. Application of the G’s written Acts and subordinate statutes;
1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 136 of the choice of punishment;
1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;
1. On the grounds of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the sentencing conditions stated in the records of the instant case, including the following circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sex, family relation, family relation, home environment, motive and means of the commission of the crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, shall be equally taken into account and the sentence as ordered.
Disadvantageous circumstances: The defendant used violence to require a police officer to take a drinking test.
A favorable circumstance: The same shall not apply to cases where the means of obstructing the performance of official duties and the degree of obstructing the performance of official duties are different.
Until now, there has been no history of such investigation or punishment.
The crime of this case seems to have been caused by contingently.