beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by a fine of four million won.
When the defendant does not pay a fine, the period of 10,000 won shall be converted into one day.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
1. On January 31, 2018, at around 06:00, the Defendant damaged the victim E’s main store operated by Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, by avoiding disturbance, such as “takes and drinking,” even after the business was completed, and the police officer was dispatched to the police officer upon receiving a report from the victim. However, the Defendant destroyed the Defendant’s 2nd repair cost of KRW 400,000 by generating the main stop, which is the victim’s possession.
2. Around January 31, 2018, the Defendant obstructed the performance of official duties at the “G” singing shop located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F, and at around 08:30, the Defendant expressed that: (a) the police officer I belonging to the Seoul Gangnam Police Station H District, who was dispatched after receiving a report of 112 while drunking his/her employees, was urged to return home; and (b) he/she expressed that “I d, d, kins, kins, kins, kins, knife” was faced once by hand.
Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning the handling of 112 reports.
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement by the defendant in court;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes in each statement protocol E and I;
1. Articles 136 (1) and 366 (Selection of Fines) of the Criminal Act;
1. Articles 37 and 38 of the Criminal Act to increase concurrent crimes;
1. The reasons for the suspended sentence under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, which are not a crime or a crime of the same kind during the period of suspension of execution of the reasons for sentencing, the injury is not serious, and the compensation for the damage was agreed, and the obstruction of the execution of official duties was decided by the fine, taking into account the fact that the injured police officer recognized the authenticity of the defendant as being in excess of the number of vehicles and issued a written confirmation.