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

[Criminal Records] The Defendant was sentenced to four months of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny at the Seoul Central District Court on February 2, 2017 and the judgment became final and conclusive on February 3, 2017.

[2] No person shall interfere with the rescue, transfer, emergency treatment, or medical treatment of an emergency patient by a person engaged in an emergency medical service by means of violence, intimidation, deceptive scheme, threat, or other means, or destroy, damage, or occupy medical facilities, equipment, medicine, or other objects for emergency medical services by a medical institution, etc.

Nevertheless, on September 16, 2016, the Defendant interfered with emergency medical services for those engaged in emergency medical services, such as taking two times the part of the victim, taking two times the end of the body of the Defendant under the influence of alcohol, and taking two times the part of the victim, taking two times the part of the body of the victim, taking two times the part of the body of the victim, taking two times the part of the body of the victim under the influence of alcohol in order to build the blood pressure of the victim E (n.e., the victim 24 years old).

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Previous records: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the details of consolidated cases;

1. Article 60 (1) 1 and Article 12 of the Emergency Medical Service Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. After Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 39 (1) of the same Act:

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

1. As to the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the provisional payment order, the Defendant and his defense counsel had been in a mental and physical state at the time of committing the instant crime.

The argument is asserted.

According to the records of this case, even though the defendant was in a state of drinking at the time of committing the crime of this case, it does not seem that the defendant did not have or lacks the ability to make a decision.

Therefore, the defendant and defense counsel's above assertion is not accepted.

The reason for sentencing is that the defendant does not engage in the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime.