Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

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

Criminal facts

On August 8, 2017, the Defendant was urged to pay the alcohol value and return home from the slope E belonging to the Ulsan Coast Guard, which was dispatched to the scene after receiving a report of 112 that he did not pay the alcohol value at C amusement stations located in Ulsan Coast Guard B.

In doing so, the Defendant: (a) took a bath to “Sweak Sweak police officer’s sweak”; (b) took a bath to the victim E with a bad hand, and pushed it into a sweak hole in need of approximately two weeks of treatment; and (c) took a bath to the victim E (Sweak).

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases, and at the same time injured the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to E and F;

1. G statements;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (Attachment of photographs);

1. The point of obstructing the performance of official duties in the relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts: Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act; Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with the punishment heavier than that prescribed for the crime of injury);

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 sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act does not mean that the degree of interference with the performance of official duties is less severe by attacking a part of a part of the defendant's body, which is a part of the defendant's body, and also causing injury to the victimized police officer: Provided, That the defendant deposited one million won for the victimized police officer, reflects his depth, and reflects his wrongness, and the defendant was only on the records of being sentenced once to a fine for violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act in the year 198 prior to the instant case.