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

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

Punishment of the crime

At around 22:00 on June 5, 2017, the Defendant obstructed the police officers, who are public officials, by assaulting, such as cutting, pushing, tightly cutting, tightly cutting, cutting, and tightly cutting off the trees of the police box C, which was called out after receiving a report of assault with the Defendant on the Defendant’s living female B, in front of the 60-7-7-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-J

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to D or E;

1. Each statement of B and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of damaged parts;

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

1. Where an act of assault or intimidation was committed against multiple public officials who perform the same duties as commercial concurrence, the crime of obstructing the performance of multiple official duties is established according to the number of public officials who perform official duties. Where the above act of assault or intimidation was committed in the same place at the same time and is assessed as one act in light of social norms, the crime of obstructing the performance of multiple official duties is in a commercial concurrence relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505, Jun. 25, 2009). Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act are related to the commercial concurrence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision

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, on the grounds of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act with regard to the order of provisional payment, took a bath against the police officer in uniform and took violence.

This act is likely to be criticized not only in that it interferes with the police officer's duty to maintain the order, but also in that it can promote a light of legal order and public authority.

However, the defendant seems to have committed the crime of this case contingently while under the influence of alcohol.

The defendant is the first offender, and is currently recognizing and opposing his mistake.

The degree of violence against a police officer and the degree of damage thereby.