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

피고인은 2015. 6. 22. 17:30경 창원시 의창구 C에 있는 ‘D’ 목욕탕에서, 술에 취하여 목욕탕에 들어가려고 하였다가 업주로부터 이를 제지당하자 업주를 폭행하였고, 이에 업주가 112 신고를 하여 출동한 창원서부경찰서 E파출소 소속 경찰관 F, G로부터 소란을 피우지 말라고 제지당하자, 상스러운 욕설을 하면서 위 경찰관들의 몸을 수회 밀고, 이에 위 F로부터 공무집행방해의 현행범인으로 체포되자, 위 F의 다리를 발로 걷어 찼다.

As above, the Defendant assaulted police officers to interfere with legitimate performance of duties concerning handling 112 reports and arrest of flagrant offenders.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as recording and reporting recording (No. 8);

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime concerned;

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

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. In order to establish the legal order of the country with the reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and eradicate the light of public authority, it is necessary to strictly punish the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties.

However, the fact that the defendant reflects the wrong, that the F does not want the punishment of the defendant, that the F does not want the obstruction of performance of official duties against G is minor, that the defendant does not have any other criminal power except that punished by a fine twice due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act, etc. In addition, the punishment shall be determined as ordered by taking into account all the sentencing conditions, such as the background of the crime in this case, the age of the defendant, etc.