Where the above fine is not paid, one million won shall be converted into one day.

On August 23, 2014, around 04:37, the Defendant reported to the police when the visit was refused, and sought an explanation that it is possible to visit the police officer from the police officer dispatched to the visit.

At around 05:25 on the same day, the Defendant, under the influence of alcohol, experienced complaints by police officers that did not resolve civil petitions. At around 05:25 on the same day, the Defendant stated that F, who was in the process of the 112-reported case, expressed a desire to “this farb head fark farb far.” The Defendant f, who was in the process of the 112-reported case, sent two arms of F, and pushed down once.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning 112 reporting duties and duties in the military.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The statement concerning F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report internal investigation (in the case of 112 Report), report internal investigation (in the case of 112 Report), CCTV photographs attached thereto, and report internal investigation (in the case of E district CCTV), etc.;

1. The relevant statutory provisions on criminal facts, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act of the choice of a sentence, the selection of a fine (the crime committed during the repeated crime due to the crime committed during the repeated crime, the Defendant’s violent force, previous experience, and police force to put in the maintenance of public order, and the arrest of a flagrant offender, etc., should be punished strictly, in light of the following: (a) the police force to put in the maintenance of public order and security has been wasted; (b) the police force to put in the police force to the police force during the arrest of a flagrant offender is bad; (c) but (d) the impulse that the police officer want to put in the custody of him/her in the custody of him/her due to the impulse that he/she would have caused the commission of his/her mistake after the police officer had followed the police officer’s judgment

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;