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

[Criminal Power] On November 13, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of suspension of execution in August 21, 2013 by a Seoul East Eastern District Court for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and the judgment becomes final and conclusive on November 21, 2013 and is still under suspension of execution.

【Criminal Facts】

On May 13, 2015, at around 23:00, the Defendant: (a) provided a bath to D, a main customer in the so-called Seoul Special Metropolitan City Gwangjin-gu, and was called for an identification card from the border F (27 years old), a police officer of the Seoul Mine Police Station E District E District, called for a 112 report while the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and gave a bath to D, a main customer in the so-called so-called the Defendant was called for an identification card; (b) provided a police officer of the Seoul Mine Police Station E District E District, who was called for an identification card; and (c) provided a drinking card to F face.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning 112 report handling.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, inquiry reports, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (the fact that the period of suspension of execution of punishment is a period);

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

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the order of provisional payment under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act was that the defendant committed the instant crime during the period of probation, and the criminal records related to violence committed eight times in addition, the degree of obstruction of the performance of official duties of this case is relatively heavy, and the defendant's mistake is recognized. The defendant did not have any criminal records prior to obstruction of the performance of official duties, and the punishment is determined by considering all the factors of sentencing