Defendant

A A shall be punished by a fine of one million won, and by a fine of four million won, respectively.

The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

1. On March 26, 2017, at around 03:20, Defendant E: (a) in the “G danran bar” located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul, Seoul around 03:20, the Defendant destroyed the instant instant instant instant “G danran bar business” due to the victim H and alcohol value, which is the main proprietor of the instant “G Garan bar,” and (b) caused the instant damage by cutting the table into the table, breaking the instant table, which is the victim’s ownership; and (c) breaking the instant instant World Cup and alcohol, which is the victim’s possession.

2. Defendant B, around March 26, 2017, at around 03:40, the Defendant: (a) reported and sent out after receiving 112, Defendant B: (b) obstructed the said J’s title by hand; (c) obstructed the Defendant’s bridge; and (d) obstructed the Defendant’s face and sloping with his hand when the police officer called out after receiving 112 report.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of reports and the prevention of crimes by police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of the suspect against the defendant B by the prosecution;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect of the defendant A;

1. Each police statement made against J, K and L;

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Articles 366 and 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the ordinary concurrent crimes (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties);

1. Selection of each alternative fine for punishment;

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

1. Grounds A for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act: Consideration, such as the absence of any history of punishment exceeding the force or fine related to assault and the absence of any gravity of damage, etc., the degree of interference with the execution of official duties is not somewhat weak; however, there is no history of punishment exceeding the fine; Defendant A’s response due to the drinking value problem; Defendant A called the police by causing a trial cost; Defendant A was a criminal act committed by contingency while under the influence of alcohol; Defendant was a criminal act committed by the influence of alcohol; Defendant’s family members support and live in good faith; and