2. The defendant does not pay the above fine.

On February 16, 2016, the Defendant did not pay the drinking value in the “C” located in Ansan-si B, Dongdong-si on February 16, 2016, and did not pay the drinking value, and was urged from E(45) police officers belonging to the D District Police Officer to calculate the drinking value from the police officers belonging to the D District, dispatched upon receipt of a business-based report, the Defendant’s face was 3 to 4 times with the face of E(3 to 4 times, and was at one time with the hand floor of the hand.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers on the maintenance of public peace and order.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to F and E;

1. Reporting on the arrest of a case;

1. The application of the Acts and subordinate statutes concerning report on investigation (the photograph of cash on the suspect's wall) and accompanying materials;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 136 of the choice of punishment;

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act with the custody of the workhouses is not against the nature of the crime of this case for the reason of sentencing. However, the fact that the crime of this case is not planned, that the defendant has no record of crime exceeding the same kind of crime or fine, that the defendant confessions all of the crimes of this case, is against the defendant, and that the degree of violence, etc. is considerable in terms of the degree of interference with official duties.

In light of the facts that cannot be seen, etc. favorable to the defendant, the court shall determine the punishment as ordered by taking into account all the circumstances revealed in the arguments and records of the case, such as the age, sex, environment, and circumstances after the crime.