If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

On October 13, 2017, at around 03:00, the Defendant used the “frighting frighting around a drunk convenience store” on the front of the convenience store located in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and used the “frighting frighting frighting around a drunk convenience store.” On the ground that E and F, a police officer belonging to the Seoul Dongjak Police Station D District Unit, a police officer of the Seoul Dongjak Police Station D police station, who was called the Defendant and a daily f, are frighting to drink frighting frighting to walk frighting frighting to walk frighting, and soliciting him to walk f to walk frighting frighting. The Defendant used the above E face f righting f righting f to drinking, and used the frighting frighting frighting frighting frighting.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of F and H

1. Article 136 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act selection of punishment;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of a selective fine for punishment (such as: (a) a high possibility that the defendant might criticize the police officer who has worn his uniform; (b) a confession and seriously reflects the defendant; (c) there is no other force other than the punishment imposed on two occasions due to driving under drinking; (d) the circumstances of the instant case that the defendant committed contingently; and (e) the degree of damage inflicted by the police officer or the degree of obstruction

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;