Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On November 5, 2017, the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties, at around 00:15, the police officers belonging to the Pyeongtaek-si Police Station located in Pyeongtaek-si C, controlled the Defendant’s wife E-driving car as a traffic signal violation, and the Defendant took a bath to the Defendant’s wife E-driving vehicle, pushed the F’s body, pushed off E from the driver’s seat, and disembarked E from the driver’s seat, and the Defendant boarded the driver’s seat.

When the police officer G photographs the defendant's act as a business device, it obstructed the police officer's legitimate execution of official duties by assaulting G's hand by assaulting G's hand.

2. The Defendant damaged public goods at the above date, time, and at the above place, destroyed a device for business use equivalent to 153,500 won at the market price of the public goods cited by G by cutting off G’s hand.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. G statements;

1. A report on investigation;

1. Written estimate;

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties) and Article 141 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of impeding the performance of official duties) concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of ordinary concurrent crimes (limited to cases where a person interferes with the execution of each official duty);

1. Selection of each alternative fine for punishment;

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. Circumstances unfavorable to the sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order: (a) This case is a case in which a police officer, who was dissatisfied with the procedure prescribed by law, exercised violence against a police officer in the course of performing official duties without following the procedure under the control of a police officer; (b) the nature of the crime is serious; (c) the police officer, who wishes to punish the defendant; (d) favorable circumstances such as confession, reflectivity; (d) there is no criminal record for the same kind of crime; and (e) there is no injury to the victimized police officer; and (e) there is no contingent crime.