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

On June 23, 2015, the Defendant, at around 03:19, did not leave the “Dju” located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju, and did not leave the place of business after the completion of the business. As such, the Defendant went out of the “Dju” by the Gwangju Western Police Station E-gu, Gwangju Police Station E-gu, and by slope G, called “Dju”.

After the Defendant took measures to return home to the Defendant, the Defendant heard the Defendant’s answer that “I cannot get off the house due to a large number of flights.” However, I cannot get off the vehicle.”

Accordingly, the Defendant, while stating that “the stick of the public refuses the citizens’ horses,” demanded several times to put the fingers in the gap of the windows opened by the patrol vehicle, and “the head of the house,” and assaulted the patrol vehicle by blocking the operation of the patrol vehicle by putting it down to the shots of the patrol vehicle, and destroying the excess of the patrol vehicle.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of each police interrogation protocol against the accused;

1. The statement of each police officer made to F and G;

1. Investigation report (related to the investigation of the shootings, and relation to the time of crimes);

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the defendant, on April 15, 2015, was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for six months at the Gwangju District Court on April 23, 2015, and the judgment became final and conclusive on April 23, 2015, and thus constitutes the instant crime, there is a need for strict punishment in light of the fact that the defendant has no criminal record for the same kind of crime, the degree of the instant assault does not seem to be significant, and it appears to be a contingent crime, and the defendant's age, character, character and environment, and motive for the instant crime.