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

피고인은 2016. 9. 22. 07:48경 춘천시 효자동 신흥사거리 도로에서 ‘인도에 젊은 남자가 쓰러져 있다’는 112신고를 받고 현장 출동한 강원춘천경찰서 B지구대 소속 순경 C가 술에 취한 피고인에게 “춘천에 살고 있는 데가 없냐 ”고 묻자 위 C에게 “내가 강릉에 사는데 불만 있어 씨발 뭘 그렇게 아니꼽게 보고 그러냐 불만 있냐 내가 여기 누워 있는데 보태준 거 있어 ”라고 하면서 욕설을 하는 등 소란을 피웠고, 이에 위 C는 피고인에게 경범죄처벌법상 음주소란으로 통고처분 스티커를 발부 한 후 피고인을 D까지 순찰차로 데려다 주게 되었다.

around 08:08 on the same day, the Defendant was aboard the E patrol with the above C, and was in F of the same time, and was in F of the same time, and was in police for two years, the same year, and the same year.

c. The c.m. c. c. c. the c.m. c. a c.m. c. a c.m. c. a c.m. c. c.s. a c.m. c.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning on-site measures according to the 112 Report by police officers and the protection of the personal safety of hosts and the prevention of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of police statement protocol to C

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

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

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the sentencing guidelines shall not apply as the choice of fines for reasons of sentencing.

In order to establish the state’s legal order and eradicate the state’s light of public authority, there is a need for strict punishment for the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties. However, the Defendant is in depth of his mistake, the instant crime appears to have been committed contingent, the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment, and the instant crime is committed.