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

The defendant is a person who lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to the illness or alcohol dependence on dementia and alcohol in detailed name Albuses. The defendant is a person who lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions.

1. Special intimidation: (a) around December 1, 2017, the Defendant opened a door to the victim D (37 years old) who is one’s own child in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, 101 Dong 211 on December 1, 2017.

“On the ground that the victim had opened the door, the victim was able to take a bath, and the entrance door was cut off with a string of the entrance door, and the victim was threatened with a knife, threatening, threatening, and threatening the victim by gathering a knife (37 cm in total length, 25 cm in length), which is a dangerous object in the kitchen and in the kitchen.

2. The Defendant interfered with the performance of special official duties, at the same time, at the same place as the foregoing paragraph, and at the same time, at the same time and place, and at the same time as 112 notification, F Officer of the Suwon Police Station E box belonging to the Defendant:

The several warnings were defective, 2-3 times the same knife as the above, which is a dangerous object, to the police officer.

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous objects and interfered with police officers' legitimate execution of duties concerning 112 reporting processing affairs.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each testimony of witness F and G;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. A protocol of seizure and a list of seizure;

1. On-site photographs;

1. The CD;

1. The defendant's investigation report (transfer of the suspect's new illness to the new illness department), medical examination and treatment confirmation document, and medical examination and treatment confirmation document [the defendant and his defense counsel] claim that the defendant has no knife with the police officer, or that the knife had no knife with the police officer, and that the defendant interfere with the execution of special official duties.

However, in full view of the witness F and G’s testimony to the effect that each of the evidence in the holding, in particular, “the defendant has moved to F with a knife and knife,” and the images of CDs recorded on the field conditions at the time, the defendant is as stated in its reasoning.