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

피고인은 2014. 5. 10. 01:40경 여동생의 집인 시흥시 B, 111동 301호에서 여동생과 함께 술을 마시다가 여동생으로부터 피고인의 아들이 버릇이 없으니 엄하게 교육해야 한다는 말을 듣고 이에 대꾸하면서 서로 말다툼하다가, 여동생의 112신고를 받고 그곳에 출동한 시흥경찰서 C파출소 소속 순경 D으로부터 퇴거할 것을 권유받자 “내가 왜 나가, 씹할 놈들아”라고 고함을 지르며, 손으로 위 D의 뺨을 2회 때리고, 발로 그의 다리를 걷어찼다.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning 112 reporting duties and criminal investigation by police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of statutes on photographs of damage;

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 to attract a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted as to the assertion of the defendant and defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, claiming that the defendant had a mental disorder under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime.

According to the records, although the defendant's drinking at the time of the above crime is recognized, it does not seem that the defendant's ability to discern things or make decisions has been weak or lost, so the defendant's assertion is without merit.

The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing is a case where the defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, assaults a police public official, etc., and the defendant, in an unfavorable circumstance, such as the defendant's dubation, exercises the police official's assault, etc., and the defendant is aware of the crime of this case, and reflects his mistake in depth, and the degree of damage suffered by the relevant police official is not heavy, and the defendant is in favor of the public official