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

1. On November 9, 2014, around 00:25, the Defendant: (a) called the victim C (the age of 62) who was a security guard in front of Jinju-si B apartment room; (b) called the victim C (the age of 62); and (c) was found in the above guard room on the ground that the victim was unable to get a telephone, thereby opening a shock network equivalent to KRW 30,000,000, market price of which was attached on the glass window, and damaged by destroying one glass window equivalent to KRW 120,000, market price.

2. 공무집행방해 피고인은 2014. 11. 9. 00:35경 제1항 기재 경비실 앞에서, 위와 같이 소란을 피워 신고를 받고 출동한 경남진주경찰서 소속 경위 D 등에게 다가가 욕설하면서 위 D의 멱살을 잡아 수회 흔들고 넘어뜨린 후 다리 부분을 2-3회 걷어찼다.

Accordingly, the defendant assaulted the above D, which is a police officer, and interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning criminal investigation and maintenance of order of the D.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of C and E;

1. Each statement of D and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the spot and damaged photographs;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 136 of the Criminal Act, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of fines for the crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for sentencing of the provisional payment order is on the ground that security guards are subject to abrupted call, and thus, the defendant's damage to the security room and the glass window, and assaulted the police officers dispatched after receiving a report after the report, and thus obstructing the performance of official duties. However, the defendant is against all the criminal acts, and the damage caused by the crime of causing property damage is recovered, and the defendant is in a position to support the child of class 2 with the self-defluence in an economic difficult situation, and the defendant has the same criminal history.