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

On January 17, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 21:50, at around 301, the Seoul Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City C lending 301, and (b) at around 112, the Defendant separated the Defendant from the Defendant and his children, and then talked to the Defendant that he would know the circumstances of the case in the instant case after the Defendant’s separation of the Defendant’s children from the patrol team at the Gwanak-gu Police Station, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

The term “scisfing a scisfing,” the body of the victim was scisfing, and the victim scisfeded and scisfed with the Defendant’s wife, and then scisfing the victim’s wife, thereby causing the victim to take part in the string of the shoulder dust scisfe in

Ultimately, the Defendant assaulted the victim to interfere with the police officer’s legitimate execution of duties concerning the prevention, suppression and investigation of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. A criminal investigation report (or a relative investigation by a police officer dispatched to the scene);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs damaged;

1. Article 136 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

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

1. The defense counsel's assertion regarding the defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order asserts to the effect that the defendant was in a state of mental or physical loss or mental weakness by drinking at the time of the crime in this case. Thus, according to the above evidence, even though he was aware that he had a certain degree of drinking at the time of the crime in this case, it does not seem that the defendant had a weak ability to discern things or make decisions. Thus, the above assertion is rejected.

The fact that the reason for sentencing is confessioned and reflected in the crime, contingent crimes, the primary crime without the record of the crime, and other records, such as the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and the sentencing shown in the arguments in this case.