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

1. On February 3, 2015, from around 20:29 to 20:59 of the same day, the Defendant publicly insultingd the victim E, a police officer belonging to the D District of Gyeonggi Sungnam-gu, which was dispatched upon receipt of 112 report, on several occasions, with the following purport: (a) the Defendant: (b) had several persons, such as B and C, a taxi engineer, in front of the 322 New East East East East Asia-si, a taxi driver; and (c) had a dispute over the taxi fare; and (d) the Defendant publicly insultingd the victim on several occasions: (a) the victim E, a police officer belonging to the D District of the 112 Report.

2. On February 3, 2015, at around 20:29, the Defendant assaulted the front floor of the Defendant, who was requested to explain the situation in which B and Si guard are attached, at the place described in the foregoing paragraph (1).

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning 112 reporting duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning police statements to E;

1. Articles 311, 136 (1) and 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the relevant criminal facts, and the selection of fines for the obstruction of performance of official duties;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act does not coincide with the previous sentencing grounds of the provisional payment order, and the sentence is determined as ordered in consideration of all the sentencing conditions indicated in the argument of the instant case, such as the fact that the injured police officer sought a letter to the injured police officer and deposited KRW 700,000,000, and the degree of obstruction of the performance