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

On October 30, 2016, at or around 00:25, the Defendant: (a) reported to the head of the police box of the Sinsan East East Police Station, the police box of the Sinsan East Police Station, at around 00:25, and (b) attempted to go to and go to, E despite having been called out by the head of the police box belonging to the Sinsan East Police Station, and (c) prevented G from blocking the front of the Defendant; (b) whether C is a dwar of any weather;

C. The brush theory that “C.E. E. F. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. F. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. H. H. H.

As a result, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning criminal investigations by police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. Each statement prepared by H;

1. 112 Application of the Act and subordinate statutes on CDs for storage of documentary images by police officers, police officers, of the 112 Report processing list, police officers’ photographic pictures;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Since the reasons for sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, the sentencing guidelines do not apply to the recruitment of the workhouses.

The dismissed part of the prosecution in consideration of the facts that assault police officers performing official duties and the nature of the crime is not good, that the defendant led to the confession of the crime of this case, that there is no record of punishment for the same criminal record, that there is no record of interference with the execution of official duties, and that there is no excessive degree of interference with the execution of official

1. The summary of the facts charged (Assaults) is between the victim E (23) and the police officer during the period of October 2016.

On October 30, 2016, around 00:25, the Defendant committed assault against the victim, such as taking the victim’s bath while drinking alcohol together with the victim on the ground that the victim tried to go home while drinking alcohol with the victim, and taking the victim’s breath by hand.

2. We examine the judgment. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of assault is a crime falling under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 260(3) of the Criminal Act. The record reveals that the victim is prosecuted in the instant case.