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

피고인은 2017. 11. 1. 21:10 경 서울 서대문구 C에서 ‘ 도박을 한다’ 는 112 신고를 받고 출동한 서울 서대문 경찰서 D 파출소 소속 경위 E가 신고 경위를 확인하기 위해 피고인과 그 일행에게 신분증 제시를 요구하자, " 개새끼야. 씹새끼야. 내가 뭘 잘못했어

“The Babbuck theory,” the chest part of the above E was tightly sealed once by hand, and the above E’s Babbbuck part was bucked once by hand.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning 112 reporting handling duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of damaged parts;

1. Article 136 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the defendant wears his uniform and exercises the force to a police officer on duty.

However, the punishment shall be determined as ordered by taking into consideration all the factors of sentencing, such as the fact that the defendant is divided in depth, the fact that there is no criminal history of the defendant, other circumstances leading to the crime, the degree of force of the crime, the age, sexual behavior, environment, etc. of the defendant.

The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Defendant was in a state of mental or physical loss or mental weakness under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant case.

According to the records, although the defendant can be acknowledged that he was drinking at the time of the crime of this case, in light of the background leading up to the crime of this case, the means and method of the crime of this case, and the defendant's speech and behavior before and after the crime of this case, the defendant was under the influence of alcohol and had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

Since the above argument cannot be accepted, it shall not be accepted.