Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On January 2, 2013, at around 18:40 on January 2, 2013, the Defendant was voluntarily accompanied by a police box located in Pyeongtaek-si B and was subject to investigation in relation to the assault case.

The Defendant, who belongs to the above police box, laid off the clothes of the Defendant, “I am off. I am off. I am off. I am off. I am out and am off. Women. I am out and am off. I enter the police civil petition. When you enter the civil petition, I am back. I am off. I am called “I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am.”

The Defendant continued to commit a threat to the police officer E in his place, stating that “I am, I am saw, I am dead. I am saw off, I am off, I am am off, I am dead, I am am off, I am am off, I am am.”

As a result, the defendant assaulted and threatened D and E, who is a police officer, thereby hindering the police officer's legitimate execution of duties concerning investigation and case handling.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. Statement of the police statement related to F and D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report (the preparation of slopeD, general investigation report, recording content);

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 136 of the same Act concerning the applicable criminal facts, the choice of fines;

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

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

1. The crime of this case on the ground of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is a case where the defendant obstructed the performance of official duties by police officers dispatched after receiving a report by the defendant, and the defendant seems to have committed the crime of this case with the attitude of disregarding the exercise of legitimate public authority, and the defendant committed a disturbance before the case, even before the case occurred, it is not easy that the defendant's liability for the crime of this case is somewhat weak.

However, even though the defendant was suffering from mental illness at the time of the instant case, his behavior is in depth against the defendant's act after being hospitalized thereafter.