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

On March 7, 2015, the Defendant: (a) sought to return home from a slope D, a police officer belonging to the Cheongju-gu Police Station C Zone C, which was called out after having expressed a bath to a taxi officer and having reported that he was able to do so; (b) tried to go off D’s inner diameter by hand; and (c) assaulted D’s right knick with his hand at one hand.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the maintenance of police officers' order.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Application of the police statement law to D;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order is the defendant's wrong mobilization of the sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, but there are unfavorable circumstances and many crimes, such as the fact that police officers, who fit for her scambling, appear to have scambling physical pain and maternity, and committed the crime without being scambling during the repeated crime period, but it seems that the elderly's parents and children were faithfully supported with the elderly's children through the delivery date after the release, and the crime committed by scambling the elderly's scambling with the elderly's parents after the release, is divided into depth about the crime committed by scambling the victim's scambling, which is different from the Defendant's serious crime committed by scambling the victim, and there was no significant result like the injury, and there was no record of punishment for obstruction of the performance of official duties, and the delivery date of the crime of this case is for family support.

The defendant, who lives dependent on temporary layoff benefits by being subject to an industrial accident, is not re-offending through a single owner, and is the most responsible.