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

1. Around December 13, 2017, the Defendant: (a) committed assault against the victim E, who is in front of a carter without any reason under the influence of alcohol at the “Duding room” of the 1st floor of the Southern-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Nam-gu, Incheon, at around 05:35 on December 13, 2017; (b) assaulted the victim E, who is in front of a carter,

2. On December 13, 2017, at around 05:55, at the place indicated in paragraph (1) at around 05:55, the Defendant: (a) took an inquiry of the assault facts from a slope G belonging to the Seoul Southern-dong Police Station of the Incheon Southern-dong Police Station, who was dispatched to the site after having received a report; and (b) took a bath to the said slope G, “I am fright, bitch bitch bitch,” and (c) committed an assault by bombing a spath of a slope G with double hand upon avoiding the slope G.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on handling 112 reports.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. E statements;

1. Photographss of victims E and on-site;

1. 112 declaration;

1. Investigation reports (on-site inspections, etc. of CCTV images) and the application of CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of violence), Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties), and the selection of penalties for each fine concerning the crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

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

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order requires strict punishment for a crime that undermines the State’s function by nullifying a legitimate exercise of public authority. However, the extent of the Defendant’s use of official duties is relatively weak, such as: (a) the Defendant has no record of punishment or a fine exceeding the same kind of crime; (b) the recognition of each of the instant crimes and reflects his mistake; and (c) the Defendant’s spouse and children seek the preference while promising the Defendant to prevent recidivism.