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

On July 4, 2017, at around 23:30, the Defendant:30, expressed a desire to take care of the water source detention house in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, and the fourth floor C of the same 4th floor, requesting medication while asserting the symptoms of public disorder; however, upon receiving a notification that additional medication is difficult due to a local mental medicine, the Defendant stated that D, an assistant principal on duty, “I am at night, I am at night, I am at hand, I am, I am at hand, I am, I am, I am at the bar, and I am at the bar, I am at the bar, I am “I am at once, I am at the bar, I am at the bar, and am at the toilet frame, I am at the bar, and died of the water, I am at the bar and the toilet.”

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by public officials on the duty to maintain safety and order in correctional institutions by assault and intimidation, and publicly insultingd the victim D while other prisoners in prison are in hearing.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made with respect to G, E, D, and F;

1. A complaint filed in D;

1. Application of statutes on video data, such as ct v video recording data;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties), Article 311 of the Criminal Act (the point of insulting) and the selection of each fine for a crime;

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

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

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

1. Although it is not good for a public official to interfere with the execution of duties by a public official who is performing a duty to maintain order in a correctional institution for the reason of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, it appears that the crime of this case was committed under the circumstances where the symptoms of the Defendant’s public disorder were excessively interested, and that it seems that it was seriously against his violent acts.