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

1. On November 21, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 05:25, 2015, the Defendant: (b) was under influence on the front side of the North Korean-U.S. Jeju-si 33, a dong-ro, Jeju-si; (c) was trying to calculate the taxi fee by the taxi card; and (d) was dissatisfied with the fact that he was rejected, the Defendant destroyed the Defendant’s personal taxi owned by the victim B, who was operating the Defendant, by sticking the said personal taxi to the taxi that rejected the calculation of the said card, thereby damaging the Defendant’s personal taxi amounting to KRW 326,514.

2. 공무집행 방해 피고인은 2015. 11. 21. 05:45 경 제 1 항 기재 장소에서 위와 같은 이유로 신고를 받고 출동한 제주 동부 경찰서 D 파출소 소속 경위 E으로부터 귀가할 것을 요구 받자 화가 나 “ 이 씨 발 새끼들 아 ”라고 욕설을 하며 발로 위 E을 1회 걷어찼다.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the prevention and suppression of the above E, which wear the police uniform.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. A written statement prepared B and F;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to copies of a written estimate of damaged parts, photographs and general repair cost;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 136 of the Criminal Act, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (a point of obstructing the performance of official duties), and the selection of fines for a 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. In light of the reasons for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the following circumstances are considered in light of the sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act: The fact of the crime is recognized and reflected in the sentence; the victim of property damage and the victim do not want the punishment against the defendant; the police officer does not want the punishment against the defendant; the victim of the obstruction of the performance of official duties does not want the punishment against the defendant; the circumstances unfavorable to the first offender: violence is committed against the police officer dispatched upon receiving the report.