Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

At around 20:10 on September 19, 2014, the Defendant received a notice of summary trial and a notice of penalty payment from the E District District of the Seoul Gangseo-gu Seoul Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Police Station, on his/her main revocation and on the streettourology, and then, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, breadd the police officers who were in the same area, and breadd the police officers who were in the same area, bread the Defendant, and bread the Defendant, and bread him/her to stop back and her back to the country, and bread him/her of the foregoing F, “the Defendant breadd the Defendant, such as the bladre of the bome of the f, the bladrh, the bladrh, the bladrh, the bladdd

As a result, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning situation service of police officers belonging to the patrol group.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the police statement concerning G;

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order is a fact that the case is not less complicated because the crime of this case interfered with the execution of official duties by assaulting the police officer, such as the defendant, who was dispatched after receiving a report by forceing the disturbance due to drinking alcohol, and the clicking so on.

However, except for the instant case, the Defendant: (a) was the first offender without any previous conviction; (b) led to a confession of an offense; and (c) led the Defendant to repent of his mistake in depth; and (d) remitted the full amount of KRW 3,548,190 for the damage compensation claimed by the victimized police officer; and (b) sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment with prison labor in consideration of the overall circumstances, such as the fact that the victimized police officer was aware of his intention and sought a letter; and (c) accordingly, (d) the sentence of imprisonment with prison labor was determined to be harsh; (e)