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

On March 1, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 00:0, the Seoul Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the first floor of the underground floor: (b) reported by the Defendant to 112, and tried to keep the above G from drinking cans of drinking water that the Defendant had sent to the Defendant, and (c) tried to keep the Defendant from drinking water, while the police officer belonging to the Seoul Gwangjin-gu Police Station E-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City E-gu Police Station wanting to take a bath for the said G while listening to the statement of his singing room, and (d) tried to keep the said F from drinking water cans of drinking water; (d) the said F’s spath and f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s bat; and (e) the said f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s bat,

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the prevention, suppression and investigation of the above F, H and I crimes, which are police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Each police statement made to F, H, and I;

1. Application of the G’s written Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act that choose a sentence, and the choice of fines;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, the Defendant alleged to the effect that the Defendant was physically and mentally deprived or physically weak at the time of committing the instant crime. However, in light of various circumstances such as the background leading up to the instant crime, details of the crime, and the speech and behavior before and after committing the instant crime, even though it is recognized that the Defendant was in a drunken state, it was in a state of drinking, and thus, the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

Since it is not recognized, the above argument is rejected.

Although it is not good to commit the instant crime that uses violence against incumbent police officers in the course of performing their duties with reason for sentencing, the Defendant shall be punished by a minor fine prior to 20 years prior to the instant crime.