beta
Text
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.
If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.
Reasons
Criminal facts
On August 27, 2017, at around 01:05, the Defendant was subject to the Defendant’s act of assault from E, etc., who was in the vicinity of the convenience store in the Gu, and the police box in the Jindo Police Station D, which was in the patrol, at the time of the patrol. The Defendant stated that the Defendant “I am at the time of coming home, I am at the time of coming home, I am at the time of coming home, I am at the time of coming home, and am, I am the said E’s chest was tightly pushed up three times with the two hand, and sambling about five minutes.
Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning prevention and suppression of crimes, public peace and maintenance of order, which are police officials.
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement by the defendant in court;
1. Each police statement made to E and F;
1. The Defendant alleged to the effect that he was in a state of mental and physical weakness under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime. However, in light of the circumstances of the crime, its contents and methods, Defendant’s conduct and circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime.
Therefore, the above argument cannot be accepted.
Application of Statutes
1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 136 of the choice of punishment;
1. The reasons for sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, which are favorable to the Defendant, include the following: (a) the Defendant’s mistake was pened in depth; and (b) there are some circumstances to consider the motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime.
On the other hand, the obstruction of the performance of official duties not only interferes with the function of the state's legal order by nullifying the legitimate exercise of public authority, but also is related to the excessive restriction of the general public's safety, so it is disadvantageous to the defendant.