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

Around 22:40 on January 3, 2019, the Defendant was drunk at the joint entrance of the building C Dong 1, Dong C, Dong C, and the Defendant called “the principal offender” upon the request of the Defendant’s wife and the Defendant’s wife at the slope E and policeman affiliated with the Dong Police Station D Zone D, which called the Defendant’s wife, and called “the Defendant’s wife.” However, the Defendant expressed the Defendant’s face, i.e., “as the Defendant’s wife asked the location of the house to the Defendant’s wife,” on the ground that it would be unfilled, and the Defendant’s face was frighted. As such, the Defendant’s body was sealed, the Defendant continued to drink, as the Defendant’s face was drinking, and the Defendant’s face was threatened, and the Defendant’s face was frighted, and the Defendant’s face was frightd, as the Defendant’s face was fright.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement to F and E;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to a investigative report (limited to the attachment, etc. of field CCTV images and the closure of images);

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime concerned;

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

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. Scope of applicable sentences by law: Fines of 50,000 to 10 million won; and

2. Non-application of the sentencing criteria (selected of fines);

3. Determination of sentence: fine of 2 million won (unfavorable circumstances) is not sufficient for this case to be committed with obstruction of the performance of official duties against the police officer.

Even if all the arrest process of flagrant offenders and the situation before and after such arrest are examined, there seems to be no reason to consider the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

[Ligue circumstances] The defendant seems to have committed the crime of this case in a contingent manner.

It is an initial crime that has no criminal power.

It shows an attitude to recognize and reflect his mistake.

(b) other.