Defendant 1 and one other

Kim Sang-hoon (prosecution), and a trial

Law Firm Dong-Hun et al.

[Defendant 1]

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months.

[Defendant 2]

Defendant 2 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months.

However, for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the execution of the above sentence against Defendant 2 shall be suspended.

To order Defendant 2 to provide community service for 120 hours.

1. Defendant 1

(a) Violation of the Road Traffic Act and the Road Traffic Act;

On May 14, 2017, at around 07:00, the Defendant driven (vehicle registration number omitted) SM6 automobiles without obtaining a driving license in approximately 50 meters section from the underground parking lot of Gangnam-si ( Address omitted), ○○ apartment to the same apartment △△dong underground parking lot, from around 50 meters, while under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.16%.

B. Performance of official duties

On May 14, 2017, at around 07:38, at the same place as above 07:38, the Defendant: (a) requested Nonindicted 2 to take a drinking test at Nonindicted 2, a police officer belonging to the Southern District of the Gangnam Police Station, who was dispatched after having received a report on drinking driving 112; and (b) assaulted Nonindicted 2 at three times at the left hand.

As above, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers Nonindicted 2’s handling of reports.

2. Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act by the Defendants.

On May 14, 2017, the Defendants reported to the police by the Defendant 1 as a drinking traffic accident on May 14, 2017, on the ground that the Defendant reported the victim Nonindicted Party 1 (the victim Nonindicted Party 53 years of age) in the Gangnam-si ( Address omitted) apartment apartment, and on the ground that the victim Nonindicted Party 1 (the victim Nonindicted Party 53 years of age) was in a drinking-water parking lot, Defendant 1 took the spath of the victim’s spath, and spath of the victim’s chest and the right side with the left hand, and Defendant 2 took the spath of the victim’s spath with the victim’s left hand, and Defendant 2 took the spath of

As above, the Defendants jointly carried out the first balance of the left-hand son, the right-hand satis in need of treatment for about two weeks to the victim non-indicted 1.

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. An interrogation protocol on Defendant 1 by the prosecution;

1. Each police statement made against Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 1

1. The statement of Nonindicted 3

1. Reports on the occurrence of traffic accidents and reports on traffic accidents;

1. Report on the circumstantial statements of a drinking driver, report on the circumstances of a drinking driver, and notification on the results of the crackdown on drinking;

1. Photographs of each damaged part, each accident site photograph, CCTV images of each apartment underground parking lot, and photographs of each co-injury CCTV screen;

1. Investigation reports (Attachment of 112 Report List, and analysis of photographic images of crimes);

1. A medical certificate;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

○ Defendant 1

- Violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) in the judgment: Article 148-2(2)2 and Article 44(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act

- Violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving): Article 152(1) and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act

- The point of obstruction of performance of official duties: Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act

- Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury): Articles 2(2)3 and 257(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act

○ Defendant 2

Articles 2(2)3 and 257(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act

1. Formal concurrence (Defendant 1);

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the punishment prescribed for the crimes of violation of the Road Traffic Act in the holding that two crimes referred to in subparagraph 1(a) are more severe between the two crimes and the punishment referred to in subparagraph 1(a) of Article 50)

1. Selection of a sentence;

Each Imprisonment Selection

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes (Defendant 1);

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Concurrent Punishment of Violences, etc., which shall be limited to concurrent crimes with the punishment prescribed for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc., which shall be the largest sentence, but the lowest sentence shall be limited to the crimes of violation of the Road Traffic Act as indicated in the holding) of the Criminal Act.

1. Suspension of execution (Defendant 2);

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Consideration favorable Circumstances among the Reasons for Sentencing below)

1. Order to provide community service (Defendant 2);

Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc.

[Defendant 1]

In light of the nature of the crime committed against police officers, each of the crimes of this case, including the same kind of crime, during the period of suspension of execution, is committed without being familiar with the police officers, in view of the nature of the crime, and the crime committed again during the period of suspension of execution, it is inevitable to sentence sentence on the sole basis of each of the crimes of this case, including the following crimes: the form of the crime (the occurrence of an accident that causes damage to many representative vehicles, the behavior such as harming a police officer actively, the behavior such as getting off and actively emphasizing the clothes to a police officer, the circumstances after the crime, etc.) and the circumstances after each of the crimes of this case.

However, the fact that the defendant's family environment and support relationship is late, the fact that the existing suspension of execution will be invalidated due to the conclusion of this judgment, etc. shall be determined in accordance with the order of the defendant in consideration of favorable circumstances.

[Defendant 2]

In light of the fact that the defendant was the starter of violence against witness Nonindicted 1, the motive and attitude of the act of violence, and the fact that the defendant was punished by a fine for the same kind of crime in recent years, and led to the recidivism of this case, there is a serious need for strict punishment.

However, the punishment shall be imposed on the defendant in consideration of the fact that the defendant is late against the victim, the agreement with the victim, the family environment of the defendant, support relationship, etc., and the execution of the punishment shall be suspended on condition that social service is provided for a certain period of time.

Judges Lee Jae-py