2012 Highly 1458 Injury, Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties

A person shall be appointed.

His/her grandchildren (prosecutions) and Lee Jong-young (Public Trial)

Attorney Song-hee (Korean National Assembly Line)

May 31, 2013

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant for the period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day;

shall be confined in the station.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Criminal facts

1. Injury;

In February 2010, the Defendant began to live together with the victim B (the 40-year-old, female) who worked in the same restaurant.

On October 03, 2012, the Defendant 01: (a) on October 03, 2016: around 10, Ulsan-si “A” that she drinks alcoholic beverages with the previous victim at the frequency at the time, she saw the victim to play in a different main point along with the subsequent one, and she saw each other.

The Defendant brought an injury to the victim and the victim, on the ground that the Defendant took a drinking in another place and takes a good game without a usual occupation, and that he/she took a conflict with him/her, such as “Ping years, the same dog, and the same dog,” on the ground that he/she took the horses,” and “the victim suffered an injury to the victim, such as the left-hand box, which requires treatment for about 10 days on the ground that he/she was able to take a bath without permission, such as “Ping year, the same dog, and the same dog,” and followed two times on the left-hand side.

2. Performance of official duties;

For the above reasons, the Ulsannam Police Station* the Assistant Police Station affiliated with the earth, the victim E (the age of 24) received and dispatched the report of this case.

The Defendant did not open the door without justifiable reasons when the police officer wearing a uniform desires to enter and depart from the automatic door of the first floor.

The defendant continued to divide the personal phone without the police officer's return, opened an automatic door, and the police officer entered the door.

At this time, the police officer's response that he sits on the floor and listens only to B's statements without entering the Defendant's vindications, and there was a misunderstanding that the police officer's response to "I am going back to B, you see that I am at 'I am you am at her home when I am.' when I am at her living woman, we see that I am at 'I am.' when I am at her living woman, I am at 'I am.'. And I am am at her face when I am at her living woman. I see that I am am, we am and am swe am at her face.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties on the handling of reported domestic violence case by the victim E, a police officer dispatched without any justifiable reason.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in court;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. A witness B’s legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. A photograph of damage, written confirmation of medical treatment, and written request for investigation cooperation;

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the selection of punishment for the crime;

Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of injury), Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstruction of performance of official duties), and choice of each fine;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judges Jeong Sung-ho