Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000 (three million).

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50.

Punishment of the crime

1. On August 8, 2013, at around 00:15, the Defendant destroyed the above taxi in front of the “Djuk store” in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Defendant destroyed the above taxi in order to keep the right-hand side of F-si owned by the victim E Co., Ltd., the victim E Co., Ltd., who was stopped at the place, in his mobile phone, and to keep the head door of the string of the si in his own cell phone, thereby getting off the string of the above si.

2. On August 8, 2013, the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties by assaulting the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties in relation to criminal investigation, such as the defect that the security guards belonging to the Seoul Mak Police Station G District called out after receiving a report at the place under the preceding paragraph, were to listen to the circumstances of the instant case, and that he saw the h’s feet by driving h’s hand by hand and drinking her fee, thereby obstructing the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to I and H;

1. Application of statutes on photographs of damage;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 136 of the Criminal Act, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of fines for the crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment stipulated for the crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties heavier than punishment);

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion under Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act in the custody of the workhouse, the Defendant asserts that he was in an insane or a state of mental disorder by stating that he was in a state of mental disorder or mental disorder by being drunk at the time of the instant crime. Thus, according to the evidence adopted and examined by this Tribunal, the Defendant is recognized as having drinking alcohol at the time of the instant crime, but the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions.

The defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted as it seems to be in a state or weak condition.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.