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

On June 22, 2016, at early 06:20, the Defendant, at early 06:20, abused the Defendant’s head to the above slope E, who was asked the Defendant “I am flick, I am flick. I am fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers on the maintenance of public peace and order.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the table for handling investigation reports (Attachment to table for handling 112 reported cases), 112 reported cases;

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of fines, and the choice of fines;

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

1. Although it is necessary to strictly punish police officers who have exercised their tangible power for the reason of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order, the defendant's act of exercising his/her tangible power against his/her own mistake (limited to the defendant's past record of being punished three times for traffic-related crimes) and the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is first punished, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime of this case, and all of the sentencing conditions stated in the records of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as the order.