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

On January 20, 2018, the Defendant: (a) was able to walk the driver’s seat of the said vehicle in front of the patrol vehicle, she was set up in the police box of the Gangwon-do Police Station C in front of the police box located in C on March 20, 2018, while getting aboard the police box of the Gangwon-do Police Station C in front of the police box in front of the police box; (b) was parked in the front of the patrol vehicle in front of the patrol vehicle in front of the patrol vehicle; and (c) was placed in D and E while in front of the said vehicle.

I ambling, I ambling, I ambris.

C. The expression “A. h.” and the developments of the vehicle’s unloading from the said vehicle are “A. I.D. one time.”

It means "," and it has become a food, as the case may be.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the patrol vehicle, which is a public object, to the extent of 552,418 won for repair and damaged its utility, and interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by the police officer related to patrol within the jurisdiction.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Relevant photographs;

1. Written estimate;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the attachment ofCCTV images;

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties), Article 141(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of damaging goods for public use) and the selection of fines for the crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

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

1. Circumstances unfavorable to the reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act: Interference with the execution of official duties not only impede the function of the state’s legal order by nullifying the legitimate exercise of public authority, but also is related to the safety excess of the general public, the circumstances favorable to the criminal requiring strict punishment corresponding thereto are recognized and contradictory to one’s wrong: there has been no record of criminal punishment for the past 20 years, and all of the sentencing conditions shown in the instant records and trial process, including the defendant’s age, sex, occupation, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., are considered.