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

At around 00:50 on November 30, 2014, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol in Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu Seoul 2nd floor Cpool, and was urged to have the drinking value returned from the police officer D, who was called out after receiving 112 reports of the same content, but he refused the drinking value to the above D, along with the bath theory, and the above D refused it. The Defendant was arrested as a flagrant offender in the crime of fraud and obstruction of the performance of official duties in order to arrest the Defendant as a flagrant offender in the crime of fraud and obstruction of the performance of official duties by assaulting the Defendant, such as driving the chest on the right side of the above D, thereby obstructing the police officer’s handling of 112 reports and legitimate performance of duties concerning criminal investigations.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statements made to E and D;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of a fine concerning the crime;

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

1. Although it cannot be deemed that there is little possibility of criticism against a police officer who wears a uniform for the reason of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the defendant does not have any record of committing a crime of the same kind of crime or violence, the defendant does not have any record of committing a crime of the same kind of crime or violence, and the damaged police officer is also the defendant's wife, the defendant is in depth, and the defendant is also in depth against the defendant's age, character and conduct, family relation, economic situation, outcome of a crime, etc., the punishment shall be determined as ordered by taking into account various sentencing conditions indicated in the trial process, such as