If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000.

1. On July 18, 2018, the Defendant committed a disturbance for about 20 minutes on the grounds that the Defendant 112 reported and called up on the ground that he she was drinking at the convenience store of the C apartment shopping mall D, at the king-si, at around 00:40 on July 18, 2018, while drinking, and was sexually boomed by the police officer affiliated with the police box of the king Police Station E box called “I dle the police who would feb at any time when the reporter drinks feat.”

In this respect, the defendant, at a place where many people gather and pass, has brought about a very rough and disorderly speech to the surrounding area.

2. The Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties at the time, time, and place specified in Paragraph 1 that he would be notified by the police officer F, who belongs to the said district police officer, for acts such as disturbance of drinking, etc., and asked him to present his identification card and to verify his identity, the beer, which is located on the beer can in the above F face, was scattered in the beer can, and the can was collected toward the above F.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of official duties by police officers who perform duties related to 112 reports.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

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

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (Attachment to the 112 Report List);

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting the crime (or choice of imprisonment), Article 3 (1) 20 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act (or Article 3 (1) 20 of the same Act)

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and Article 38 (1) 3 of the same Act concerning the aggravation of concurrent crimes;

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

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the Suspension of Execution (the crime of interference with the execution of official duties in this case is not against the nature and circumstances of the crime in light of its details and methods, etc., but is not against the defendant's mistake in lieu of him, there is no record of punishment after the criminal punishment was conducted on 192, and all kinds of sentencing conditions including the motive for the crime of interference with the performance of official duties in this case, the circumstances after the crime, the defendant's age and environment, etc. are considered as follows:

1. The community service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;