Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10 million.

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

Criminal facts

1. On October 14, 2017, at around 03:45, the Defendant damaged the property by drinking the 3.60,000 won, including the cost of exchanging the scam under the influence of alcohol, at around 03:45, the window B and 3’C’s singing room 6.

2. Around October 14, 2017, the Defendant: (a) arrested the Defendant from F, a police officer belonging to the E District, to committing an offense of insult; and (b) arrested the Defendant as a flagrant offender on the part of F, a police officer belonging to the E District; and (c) assaulting F, knee, knee, knee, and kne, knee, knee, from walking twice, thereby obstructing police officers’ legitimate performance of duties in relation to the arrest of flagrant offenders.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made with respect to D, G, and F;

1. Photographs of the damaged scene;

1. The Defendant alleged to the effect that he was in a state of mental and physical weakness under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes. However, in light of the circumstances, contents and methods of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant’s act and circumstances before and after, and after, the instant crime, there was a lack of ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes.

Therefore, the above argument cannot be accepted.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 136 of the Criminal Act, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (a point of obstructing the performance of official duties), and the selection of fines for a crime;

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. The reasons for sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, which are favorable to the defendant, include: (a) the Defendant’s mistake in depth and reflects his fault; and (b) the fact that the Defendant agreed with the victim D and the police officer concerned smoothly, are favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, the obstruction of the performance of official duties is detrimental to the function of the state's legal order by nullifying the legitimate exercise of public authority.