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

On March 18, 2015, the Defendant, at one’s own house, brought a dispute between B and his spouse due to money problem, and reported from B to 112 the kitchen intimidation. B was arrested as a flagrant offender by a police officer belonging to the Kimpo Police Station, who was dispatched to the scene, and transferred it to the Kimpo Police Station.

On March 19, 2015, the following day, at around 01:00, the Defendant found it as a “C police box” located in D at Kimpo-si, Mapo-si, Kimpo-si, and there is no wrong mistake as to why we have to live in. It will be dead at all times.” The Defendant saw a sound as follows, “I will die. I will die. I will do so.” The Defendant saw a seat, boom, etc., in both hands.

When continuing such action from the slope E of the Kimpo Police Station by keeping the disturbance in around 3 hours, the police box of Kimpo Police Station was given a warning to the effect that it can be a criminal case due to the charge of disturbance in state cancellation at the government office.

However, at around 04:15 of the same day, the Defendant repeated the same behavior even thereafter, and assaulted the Defendant by walking the left side bucks and back bucks of the case two times due to the defect that the Defendant tried to arrest the Defendant as a flagrant offender in an act of disturbance in the principal revocation at the above government office.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of official duties concerning the arrest of police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Application of the statutes at night to the service place of a patrol box;

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. It is so decided as per Disposition in view of the fact that the defendant for the reason of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order appears to have committed the crime of this case in contingency under the influence of alcohol, confession, confession and reflect, absence of the same kind of power, and other factors such as sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act