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

On February 16, 2018, at around 20:44, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol on the stairs of the second floor “D” 2nd floor located in Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, Yongsan Police Station Embox, who was called upon 112 and received a request for the eviction from G affiliated assistant to the same police box, and the Defendant was under the request for the eviction of the police officer who was called upon her age.

Before having taken the bath of “to die,” the G used the right side of G on one occasion due to the lash, and used the F’s left side face once by the lash drinking, and used the F’s left side buckbucks one time to walk.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement concerning G and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (investigation of persons who fall under any item and any other reporter);

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 Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion 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 under the influence of alcohol at the time of the Defendant.

Therefore, according to the records, it is acknowledged that the defendant had drinking alcohol at the time of the crime, but in light of the background, method, and the defendant's behavior before and after the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the crime. Thus, the above argument by the defendant and the defense counsel is without merit.

The extenuating circumstances for sentencing: A favorable circumstance that is favorable to the need to strictize a person who interferes with the performance of official duties in order to establish a state’s legal order and eradicate the light of public authority: The fact that the Defendant agreed with F and G, and that there is no particular criminal history in addition to the punishment of a fine twice before 198.