1. Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000;

2. Where the defendant does not pay the above fine.

Punishment of the crime

On February 14, 2017, at around 00:45, the Defendant took a bath before Mapo-gu Seoul, and obstructed the operation of a vehicle that passed by drinking, and the police officers belonging to the Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo Police Station, who received a report that a drunk person takes charge of driving on the road, was on board the patrol vehicle belonging to the said police station upon taking protective measures under the Act on the Performance of Police Officers' Duties.

At around 01:10 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) stated that police officers were carrying the Defendant at the back seat of the patrol vehicle, which was passing ahead of Mapo-gu Seoul, on the ground that police officers were carrying the Defendant at the patrol vehicle; (b) stated that police officers were able to take care of the Defendant; and (c) carried the patrol vehicle at his hand less the right shoulder of D’s patrol officer belonging to the Seoul Mapo-gu Police Station, which was driving the said patrol vehicle; and (d) assaulted the Defendant by continuously putting the left part of the working clothes of the said D.

As a result, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of reported cases and protective measures for victims of relief.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of video Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 136 of the choice of punishment;

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

3. The defendant's assertion of Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is asserted to the effect that the defendant submitted a written opinion stating that he was unable to memory under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, and that he was in a state of mental or physical loss or mental weakness. Thus, according to the records of this case, although he was found that he had drinking alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, it cannot be deemed that the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions, or that the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or to make decisions. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is rejected.

The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing is the police of the defendant.