Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

On July 7, 2014, around 13:10, the Defendant assaulted a public official of the civil petition office who is in charge of handling unpaid service charges in a comprehensive civil petition room located in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, the Seocho-gu Seoul, 157 court branch office, and failed to respond to himself/herself, and prevented the public official of the court from maintaining the order in his/her legitimate office building on the ground that C was a suspect who is a threat to the protection of the court office building of the court that was dispatched among the public official of the civil petition office who was faced with disturbance on the ground that he/she did not respond to his/her failure to respond to it.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness C, D, and E;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to witness statements in F and G;

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of fines, and the choice of fines;

2. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion regarding the defendant and his defense counsel under Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of the workhouse asserts that since the defense counsel did not take away the defendant's bags and documents and let the defendant go out of the condition, it cannot be viewed as legitimate performance of official duties. The defendant's act in the course of resistance to this point is deemed as legitimate self-defense.

However, examining all of the evidence and the evidence submitted by the Defendant, the Defendant’s defense guards prevented public officials from standing and resisting them at the court’s comprehensive civil petition office, and directed the Defendant out of the government office for the purpose of handling the affairs of other civil petitioners. In other words, the Defendant’s re-explosion to the head of the office of general affairs of the government office of the State office of the State office of the State office of the State office of the State office of the State office of the State office of the State office of the State office of the State.

Since their performance of official duties cannot be deemed unlawful, the above assertion is rejected.

The reason for sentencing is that the obstruction of the performance of official duties and the degree of violence are relatively weak.