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

around 06:30 on September 28, 2016, the Defendant assaulted the Defendant at one time on the left face of the above E, i.e., on one hand, as the son affiliated with the police station D branch of the Seocho-gu Police Station, where the Defendant was dispatched after receiving 112 a report, and threatened the Defendant with the background leading the Defendant to report, spacing the objection, and the face of the above E, and the Defendant was spaced at one time on one hand by hand with the above E’s chest’s chest’s chest face to be genuine, and the above E used the Defendant to arrest the flagrant offender with the suspicion of interfering with the performance of official duties, thereby assaulting the Defendant, such as twice the bucks left part of the above E’s left part.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the handling of the 112 reported case by police officers and the lawful execution of duties concerning the arrest of flagrant offenders.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. A written statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (in cases of site mobilization situations, etc.);

1. Article 136 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the Defendant committed the instant crime by directly assaulting the body of the police officer in the mobilization to grasp the reason for reporting after making two reports of false details, and the Defendant committed the instant crime. In light of the circumstances leading to the instant crime, in order to establish the State’s legal order and eradicate the awareness of the public authority, it is necessary to strictly punish the crime against public authority, such as interference with the performance of official duties, etc. Furthermore, the Defendant has already been punished for a fine of three million won due to interference with the performance of official duties in 207.

However, the defendant led to the confession of the crime of this case, and the defendant did not have any record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine prior to the crime of this case, and the previous conviction due to the same crime of this case was about nine years.