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

On June 15, 2015, at C cafeteria located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on June 23:5, 2015, the Defendant: (a) notified the Defendant of the doctrine of Disturbance; (b) arrested the Defendant as a flagrant offender; and (c) resisted the Defendant to the above E, such as: (a) resisting the Defendant, the Defendant resisting that the Defendant would be on the patrol vehicle; and (b) assaulted the Defendant, i.e., the Defendant’s wheels to wear the above E, with the Defendant’s hand saw that the said E would be on the hand, and interfere with the lawful performance of duties concerning the police officer’s arrest of flagrant offender.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning police statements to E;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. It is necessary to impose strict punishment on the defendant who has exercised a tangible power directly to police officers who maintain the reason and social order for sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act and who observe the public safety.

However, the degree of violence seems not to be significant, it appears that the defendant committed the crime of this case by contingency, and the defendant is repenting and reflecting his mistake, the defendant has been punished by a fine as a crime of insulting a police officer, but there is no record of punishment exceeding a fine other than it, and the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc. are determined as ordered by the order.