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

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

Punishment of the crime

On December 9, 2016, the defendant was a person engaged in agriculture, and the defendant was involved in the impeachment assembly held in the vicinity of the National Assembly.

피고인은 C 및 D이 운전하는 트랙터 등과 함께 2016. 12. 9. 12:57 경 서울 영등포구 국회대로 여의 2 교 남단 교차로를 따라 국회의 사당으로 진행하던 중, 트랙터 2대가 나란히 도로에 진입하여 공공의 안전에 위협을 주는 상황이라는 이유로 전 북지방 경찰청 제 1 기동대 경찰관들에 의해 저지 받자 화가 나 경찰관들에게 비키라고 하고, 위 트랙터에 올라 타 위 기동대 소속 경찰관들을 발로 찼다.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspired with C to interfere with the performance of duties concerning the maintenance of legitimate assembly and demonstration order by police officers of the Korean National Police Agency 1 mobile police agency in North Korea.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to E and F;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on photographs, investigative reports (refiscing out photographs), closure photographs;

1. Articles 136 (1) and 30 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

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

1. Elements of sentencing favorable to the reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order: The confession of the defendant, the fact that the defendant was present at the assembly of the G impeachment led to the instant crime in the process of meeting with the police, the extent of the exercise of violence is not relatively much severe, and the defendant has no record of criminal punishment other than the previous offense of a fine not exceeding 17 years.

An unfavorable sentencing element: A participant in a large-scale military assembly has a duty to take minimum measures to maintain the order of police officers and ensure the safety of citizens, and the Defendant’s crime of this case is rather an act of causing danger to the safety of participants or police officers, and the liability for the crime is not easy.