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

On October 23, 2018, at around 01:40, the Defendant laid off the Defendant’s arms to the right side of “C” before the “C” located in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, with the report of 112, and the Defendant called, “C, a police officer belonging to the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho Police Station Down-gu, a police officer assigned to the scene, carried out to the scene, and called, “E, a police officer, who is a police officer belonging to the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho Police Station Down-gu, will help him move down and move off to another place, if it is difficult to move.”

Since then, the defendant was on board the patrol vehicle to handle other 112 reported duties, the defendant was unable to start the patrol vehicle by putting the door on the side of the patrol vehicle or sitting on the patrol unit, and the defendant was prevented from leaving the patrol vehicle at the patrol vehicle, and when E was prevented from doing the defendant's act at the patrol vehicle, the defendant was assaulted to the right shoulder of E by leading E to the right shoulder.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on the handling of 112 reporting duties and maintenance of order.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. The police statement of E and F;

1. The notification of the department related to the report of 112 case, the notification of the 112 reported case handling table, and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the investigation report (Attachment to video at the

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of a fine concerning the crime;

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

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for sentencing order under Article 334(1) include the nature of the crime in this case and the degree of tangible power that the defendant has exercised, the defendant appears to be contrary to the recognition of the crime in this case, the defendant has no record of criminal punishment in addition to the punishment imposed due to a violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission, and the defendant's age, character and conduct, surrounding environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the conditions of all the sentencing as shown in the argument