If the defendant does not pay a fine, one hundred thousand won shall be the day.

On May 18, 2015, at “Ccafeteria” located in Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City on May 22 and 12, 2015, the Defendant saw that the Defendant continued to walk the shoulder and arms of the female d, who was in the above D, and tried to use violence to the employees of the above d's house, and was removed from F after receiving a report of 112, the Defendant she was f from the police officer belonging to the E's work force in the E's workplace called “I must open the house,” and assaulted the above F with the intention to display the chairs who was in the next place while intending to put the above F on her hand, and was tight in the future.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties related to the above F criminal investigation.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of 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 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. The sentencing criteria shall not be applied as a fine is selected for the crime in the judgment.

2. The crime of this case was committed by the Defendant at another person’s place of business, and the police officer called out upon receiving a report on the disturbance at another person’s place of business, thereby obstructing the performance of official duties against the police officer, and the circumstances where the crime was committed are not good.

However, the attitude of committing the crime is relatively minor, the defendant recognized the crime and reflects its depth, and the police officer F also submitted a written application seeking the defendant's preference.

The defendant has experience of probation due to violent crimes, but it was 1998, and there is only one time of fine due to drunk driving.

Therefore, considering these circumstances, the defendant is sentenced to a fine like the order.