Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one million won shall be the one day.

At around 23:42 on June 3, 2020, the Defendant: (a) sent alcohol to “C” entertainment drinking club No. 112 after drinking alcohol, and was urged to pay the drinking value and return home from the police officer E (the age 27) belonging to the Jeju East Police Station D Zone No. Do, which was called to the site after receiving 112 a report; (b) was able to take care of the two-way disease on the table with the complaint; and (c) was able to take care of the two-way disease on the table; and (d) was able to take care of E, by assaulting E, by forceing it, and intending to go beyond E, thereby interfering with legitimate performance of duties by the police officer in relation to the prevention and suppression of a crime through dispatch of 112 report.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement made by the defendant in this court;

1. Statement of statement E prepared by the police officer;

1. A statement prepared in the F;

1. Entry of a report processing list of 112 reported cases prepared by the police;

1. Entry of a receipt;

1. Application of each of the related visual 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 of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 334(1) of the Provisional Payment Order 【The scope of the sentence to be sentenced by a fine of KRW 50,000 or KRW 10 million) : Violence against police officials is deemed to be an unjustifiable challenge against the State’s public authority; the Defendant committed a direct assault against the body of a police officer who suffered damage; the Defendant committed a direct assault against the victim police officer; the Defendant’s failure to take advantage of the victim police officer; the Defendant appears to have recognized and divided his mistake; the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime by contingency under the influence of alcohol; the Defendant was deemed to have committed the instant crime; the damage caused by the instant crime was minor; the Defendant did not have a heavier criminal conviction or a same criminal conviction than a fine; as well as after 205.