Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be paid.

Punishment of the crime

1. On July 20, 2013, around 17:50 on July 20, 2013, the injured Defendant was waiting for urban bus to move to Busan, along with the Defendant’s wife E (in women, 42 years of age). When the victim was waiting for the toilet to move to Busan, the victim left the toilet, resulting in a dispute with the victim.

The defendant, while making a dispute, has taken the face of the victim because of the fact that he or she became satisfy.

As a result, the Defendant put the victim into mind with the left side of the eye where it is impossible to know the number of days of treatment.

2. On July 20, 2013, the Defendant: (a) destroyed property damage by a sloping G and slope H, a police officer belonging to the sloping Police Station, who was called out after receiving a report of 112 that he assaulted E, such as as described in paragraph (1), to remove the Defendant; and (b) destroyed a string door equivalent to KRW 150,000 at the market price of the victim I owned by the nearby victim on the ground that the situation of the instant case occurred.

3. 공무집행방해 피고인은 제2항 기재 일시, 장소에서 위 H가 피고인의 행위를 제지하자 H에게 “이 씹할새끼, 이거 놔라, 죽고 싶나 개새끼야, 내가 뭐를 잘못했나, 이 개새끼 죽여버리겠다!”라고 욕을 하며 H의 얼굴을 향해 양 주먹을 수회 휘두르고, 발로 H의 다리를 걷어 찼다.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the maintenance of police officers' order.

4. On July 20, 2013, at around 19:20, the Defendant damaged public goods: (a) was arrested as a flagrant offender for the foregoing reason; and (b) the police officer, who was compelled to take custody of the said police box for the said reason and was in custody of the police box, “this singing, singing, cutting, singinging, and singinginging down the gate of the said police box where the market price cannot be ascertained.” (c) At around 19:20 on July 20, 2013, the Defendant sent the entrance of the said police box to walk the door of the vehicle.

Accordingly, the defendant has harmed the utility of goods used by public offices.

Summary of Evidence

1..