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

On May 6, 2016, the Defendant reported on May 15:40, 2016 that the Defendant 112 was under the influence of alcohol in front of the C cafeteria C cafeteria located in the Southern Military Department B, and that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, and the police officer “A police officer is under the influence of the Defendant who was under the influence of alcohol,”

He or she may, under the influence of alcohol, see that “Is, Is, Is, Is, Is, Is, Is, Is, if Is, Is, Is, Is, without any reason;

1.2 2.3 2 1.2 1.2 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.2

In this fluorial theory, E was fluord by fluoring the part of E at once, and fluoring the part of E, the head of E was fluor and assaulted by several times.

As a result, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers with regard to 112 reported mobilization service.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statements made to F and E;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 136 of the choice of punishment;

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

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act recognize and reflects the crime of this case, contingent crimes, and the defendant does not want the punishment against the defendant by mutual consent with police officers subject to the above crime during the trial period. The defendant has no record of criminal punishment in addition to the punishment of a fine due to the crime of safekeeping stolen on January 31, 1983, and other circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex, sex, family relationship, environment, circumstance and result of the crime, circumstances after the crime.