If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50.

On July 28, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor for obstruction of performance of official duties by the Seoul Central District Court on January 23, 2012.

On March 14, 2013, at the main point of "D" located in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant: (a) received 112 report on the ground that the Defendant did not pay the said main liquor value and did so to his employees; (b) received a recommendation from E, police officers to calculate the drinking value and return home; (c) completed the calculation of the drinking value; and (d) obtained the foregoing police officers’ recommendation to return home from the above police officers for about 10 minutes, the Defendant: (a) completed the calculation of the drinking value; and (b) went ahead of the said week; and (b) obtained the said police officers’ invitation to return home from the above police officers for about 10 minutes; (c) taken the bath view, such as "I am, saw, I am, I am, and I am dead."

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the police officer's legitimate execution of official duties on the visit to the 112 Report site.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of E and F;

1. A report on the obstruction of performance of official duties;

1. An inquiry report;

1. Copy of the judgment;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the current status of individual reduction/Incarceration;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the ordinary concurrent crimes (a punishment imposed for the crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties against heavier F);

1. The defendant's assertion on the selection of a selective fine for punishment (such as the fact that 700,000 won was deposited to F) is alleged to the effect that the defendant made a statement that he had no memory at the time of the crime in this case, and that he was in the state of mental disorder or mental disorder. Thus, according to the evidence adopted and examined by this full bench, the defendant was found to have drinking alcohol at the time of the crime in this case, but he did not have the ability to discern things or make decision

It is found that the state has reached a weak state.