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

1. On August 3, 2016, the Defendant, at the front of the 3rd apartment shop in Gangseo-gu, Gangseo-gu, Seoul, Yangcheon-ro, 731, and reported 112, and reported to the victim C, a police officer affiliated with the Seoul Gangseo-gu Police Station B police box, and reported to the victim C, who was a police officer affiliated with the Seoul Gangseo-gu Police Station B police box, and was in his/her name D, insultingly insulting the victim, saying, “The victim, who is a police officer in Chewing flag, would be Dazed, and the young flab, Doz.”

2. On August 3, 2016, at around 22:55 on August 3, 2016, the Defendant continued to interfere with the performance of official duties by C, a police officer affiliated with the Seoul Gangseo Police Station B police box, at the place indicated in paragraph (1), and heard the speech that the police officer may be punished as a crime of insult and a crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by committing a crime of insult against the police officer, and threatening C’s body on board, and assaulted C twice.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on the handling of 112 reported duties by police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of D;

1. Relevant Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 311 of the Criminal Act, the choice of a fine for the crime, the choice of a punishment, and the relevant Article of the Criminal Act

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Provisional Payment Order is that the act of assaulting a police officer and obstructing the performance of official duties by assaulting a police officer is not against the nature of the crime.

However, the fact that the defendant made a confession of his mistake and reflects his depth, the fact that the crime of this case was caused by contingency while returning home under the influence of alcohol, the fact that there was no previous criminal record and there was no criminal record of the suspension of execution or higher, and the sentencing shown in the records and arguments.