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

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

Punishment of the crime

1. The Defendant attempted to destroy property on June 15, 2015, and attempted to commit an attempted act, such as seeing the urine from 365 coaches at the point of a corporate bank breath in 25 ambrop around 15, 2015, by drinking at 365 ambrop, and scambling the waste cambling, which is owned by the corporate bank. However, the Defendant attempted to destroy the waste cambling, but failed to do so.

2. 공무집행 방해 및 상해 피고 인은 위 일시, 장소에서, 목포 경찰서 C 지구대 소속 순경인 피해자 D(32 세) 이 피고인을 위와 같은 혐의로 현행범인 체포하여 순찰차에 태우려고 하자, 발로 피해자의 얼굴 및 가슴을 여러 번 찼다.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the arrest of the victim in the act of committing an act of committing an offense, and at the same time, the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim such as salt in need of approximately two weeks medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. E statements;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on the investigation of shields, photographs of destruction of shields, photographs related to the case, and other closure photographs;

1. Articles 371, 366, 136 (1) and 257 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of a fine, respectively, under the ordinary concurrence, and the choice of a fine;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of suspension of execution due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving) by Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order, and the fact that the Defendant was punished due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act in 192 and 2004 is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, the crime under the suspended execution is a dual crime, the defendant committed the crime of this case in a contingency under the influence of alcohol, and the degree of injury is not significant, and the above suspended execution is erroneous.