Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On May 22, 2017, the Defendant, at around 23:00, was on board the patrol vehicle called up to 112 reported in front of Mapo-gu Seoul, Mapo-gu, with permission from the Defendant. On the ground that D, a police officer, refuses a request to move up to the house, I would like to reject the Defendant’s “Isson’s refusal to move to the subject which he was playing prior to the early lab.”

“Along with sound, it interfered with the legitimate performance of duties by police officers concerning the duty of the 112 net inspection of the victim at one time by drinking the victim’s entrance.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (to listen to shot E phone statements);

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 sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides for a sentence as ordered by considering the following factors: (a) the degree of tangible force the Defendant exercised by a police officer; (b) the Defendant has no criminal history of the same kind; (c) the Defendant suffers from mental illness for a long time; (d) the circumstances after the crime; and (e) the Defendant’s age, sex, and environment.

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.