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

At around 03:40 on December 5, 2017, the Defendant: (a) received a report from the Defendant to the effect that “the drunk customer is not a drunk;” and (b) received a request to verify the pertinent identity from E and E, a police officer affiliated with the Sungnam Police Station D, Sungnam Police Station D, who called the scene, and directly entered personal information, such as the resident registration number, in the early session; and (c) sought to die from the above F, who was on the side of the Defendant, without any justifiable reason, in order to throw away from the police officer “F” without going to the effect that the Defendant did not speak; and (d) when the Defendant recovered the above identity inquiry machine from the Defendant to the effect that he would have been subject to assault by the said F, who would have become a son, and would have become a son.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning 112 report processing.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. G statements;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a photographic act by capturing a liquid camp and a screen picture;

1. Article 136 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

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

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act are against the defendant, the degree of assault is relatively minor, there is no record of criminal punishment after 2005, and the defendant’s age, environment, sex, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc. are comprehensively considered, and the punishment is determined as ordered by the Disposition.