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

At around 01:48 on August 7, 2017, the Defendant: (a) walked a trial expenses, such as taking a taxi and taking a bath on a private taxi driver D; and (b) was confirmed by the police station C in the Bapo Police Station C, the Defendant, while she was in the process of obtaining confirmation of his/her personal information from the police officer E belonging to the said CJ, he/she used the Defendant to her “h, Chewing typ, and this prompt pit.” After having her bath theory, the Defendant assaulted the Defendant at the right side of E, back to his/her own right side, and followed the Defendant’s back to the right side.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers for the control of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the CDs or damaged police officers' photographics at the time of obstructing the performance of official duties;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 136 of the choice of punishment;

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

1. Taking into account such factors as the confession and reflection of the reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the fact that the punishment is contingent, the degree of interference with the execution of official duties is not severe, the agreement with the police officer subject to the instant crime, the fact that there is no past record of criminal punishment, and the support for the present family.