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

On April 15, 2014, at the front of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant: (a) stated that the Defendant would not pay a taxi fee and return home from the police officer D, a police officer belonging to the Seoul Songpa Police Station C District, dispatched to the site after receiving a report of 112 from a taxi engineer who did not pay a taxi fee; and (b) stated that the Defendant “I am aware of this weather and internal house, and I am out of the front of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B, and assaulted the Defendant, “I am informed of this weather and internal house, I am. I am. I am.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of reports and maintenance of order by police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the police statement law to D;

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of fines, and the choice of fines;

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

1. The fact that the reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order has a history of criminal punishment several times for the same and different crimes by 2008 is disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflected against the defendant, the fact that the defendant seems to have reached the crime of this case by drinking, and that the degree of violence against the police officer is minor is favorable to the defendant.

Here, the method and result of the instant crime, comprehensively taking into account all the conditions of sentencing, including the circumstances after the instant crime, Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family environment, etc., shall be determined as per the disposition.