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

On March 11, 2016, the Defendant received 112 reports on the fact that the Defendant opened another person’s house in front of Jin-si apartment B around 103, Jin-si around 23:47, under the influence of alcohol, and requested that the Defendant inform the Defendant of his personal information from Police Officer D belonging to the Chungcheongnam-gu Police Station C District of the above D, and requested that the Defendant inform the Defendant of his personal information. On March 11, 201, 2016, the Defendant took a bath, “news, deads,” etc., one time as a drinking, containing the parts on the left side of the above D’s boundary, and took a stop from the border E. The Defendant took a part on the left side of the above E’s boundary one time as drinking. The Defendant took a part on the left side of the D’s body.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police statement made to D or E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs, work logs and investigative reports ( telephone conversations with witnesses);

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

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

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant alleged that he was in a state of mental or physical weakness or mental loss under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime. Thus, according to the records, the Defendant was aware of drinking at the time of committing the instant crime, but in full view of the circumstances such as the background and result of the instant case, the Defendant’s behavior before and after committing the crime, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant did not have or lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions, and thus, the above assertion is rejected.