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

On August 3, 2014, around 00:50 on August 3, 2014, the Defendant committed assault, such as assaulting F’s chest part five times, when the Defendant and the Defendant reported that the Defendant f will go home to the Defendant, who was called out after having been reported that the Defendant f will go home to the Defendant.

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. The police statement concerning F;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes concerning video pictures at the scene of obstruction of performance;

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of fines, and the choice of fines;

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

1. Although it is necessary to strictly punish Defendant for the purpose of establishing a legal order on the grounds of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order and eradicating a light of public authority, the punishment is determined as ordered in consideration of the following: (a) the Defendant’s violation of the law and order on the grounds of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act; (b) the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime by contingency; (c) the degree of violence exercised by police officers was not significant; (d) the Defendant was the primary offender; (e) the Defendant was the primary offender; and (e) the Defendant was obliged to support a mixed-parent