If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

On December 1, 2017, at around 20:40, the Defendant: (a) reported that a drunk person is drunk, and was dispatched to the scene after having received a report that he was under the influence of alcohol, and assaulted the face of the said D on one occasion at one occasion.

On December 1, 2017, the Defendant continuously arrested a flagrant offender by interfering with the performance of official duties at the above place on December 21, 2017, and was on the back seat of 112 patrols, and used the face of E (34 taxes) of the police box belonging to the Busan Southern Police Station C (34 taxes) at one time, with the hand of his/her duty, and assaulted the above E's platform at several times.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers in relation to the 112 reporting processing.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to F, D, or E;

1. Application of investigation reports (investigation into on-site CCTVs, etc.) and investigation reports (investigation into attaching CDs for committing crimes)-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 136 of the same Act and the selection of fines for criminal facts;

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

1. The instant crime with the reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is not only an act of violence against the police dispatched to the site upon receiving a report, but also an act of violence against the police even when he was arrested as a flagrant offender and on board the patrol vehicle due to interference with the performance of official duties, and the nature of such crime is not good.

However, the fact that the defendant recognizes the facts charged and seriously reflects the facts charged, the fact that the type of the defendant's exercise does not reach a very serious degree, the defendant has no record of criminal punishment, and the defendant is serving as a fire officer for 15 years and is faithfully.