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

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On January 23, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor for interference with the performance of official duties in the Seoul Southern District Court, and on January 31, 2015, the said judgment became final and conclusive and is currently in the grace period.

around 02:09 on December 1, 2015, at the middle of the road in front of Gangnam-gu Seoul, the Defendant: (a) was in the front of the road, after receiving a report from a person, and received a protective measure as a safety destination from D District Guard E and C belonging to the Gangnam Police Station D, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, the Defendant: (b) took a bath to the above police officers, “I see this dog, spaths, spaths, and spaths,” and (c) took a walk at around 02:30 on the same day, the Defendant assaulted the above H’s hand, etc., to the police officers “I see this dog, spaths, spaths, spaths, and walk one time to the left mouth; and (d) assaulted the above FF’s right direction to stop from doing so.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on the handling of 112 reported duties and safety protection measures duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to E and F;

1. Relevant photographs;

1. Previous convictions: References to inquiries, such as criminal history, investigation reports (Attachment to criminal facts of a criminal suspect's suspended sentence), and application of the statutes of the Seoul Southern District Court;

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

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

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 and his defense counsel's assertion against the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order

I asserts to the effect that he was in a state of mental or physical loss or mental weakness.

In light of the records, even though the defendant was aware that he had drinking at the time of the crime of this case, he had no or weak ability to discern things.