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

On November 4, 2016, at around 01:49, the Defendant was divingd in front of the “E” located in Namdong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Nam-gu D, and was urged by G police officers belonging to the F District Unit of the Incheon Southern Police Station, who was called up upon 112, to return home from H police officers of the F District Unit of the Seoul Southern Police Station, and the Defendant recommended “Chewing feassor, nison’s superior.”

“Along with the above G and H having been serving a drinking twice in the direction of the above G and H, even though the said G and H did not depart without their destination, they met the arms part of the above G and H’s bridge, and walk the above G and H’s bridge part at a number of times without any justifiable reasons, and they met with the above G and H’s bridge part at a stop, and interfere with the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties concerning the protection of the life and body of the people.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police statement made with respect to G and H;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the I;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

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

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

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

1. As to the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order, the Defendant and the defense counsel were in a mental and physical state at the time of committing the instant crime.

The argument is asserted.

According to the above evidence and the evidence duly admitted and examined by this court, the defendant is found to have served a certain degree of alcohol at the time of committing the crime of this case, but it does not seem to have reached the mental and physical weak condition. Thus, the above argument is rejected.

Although there are three criminal records of the reason for sentencing, there are no criminal records of the same kind of crime or of the suspension of execution, the fact that there are no criminal records of the same type of crime or of the suspension of execution, the fact that the damaged police officers have attempted to find the crime, and the motive and background of the crime, and the degree of violence.