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

At around 22:40 on June 16, 2016, the Defendant: (a) was under influence of alcohol in the front of the C pharmacy in Jeju-si B; (b) the Defendant: (c) 112 reported and sent to the head of the Jeju Western Police Station D Zone E, which was called “D Zone D,” and tried to go to another place in the patrol to protect the host; and (d) upon considering that the Defendant’s drinking condition was serious, the Defendant was under contact with his family from the border E, etc., the Defendant “I would be under the control of “I would be under the control of I would be under the control of I would be under the control of I would be under the control of I would be under the influence of drinking in the front of the C pharmacy in Jeju-si; and (c) “I would live in the border E’s fat, police fating fat, fating.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of police officers' duties on the protective measures for the hosts.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of E and F;

1. Investigation report (on-site exit status, etc.);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the notification of 112 Incident-related department;

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 for the detention of a workhouse;

1. In light of the fact that the sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act Article 334(1) requires a strict punishment on the crime against public authority, such as obstruction of performance of official duties, in order to establish a national legal order and eradicate a light of the public authority, and that the Defendant committed the instant crime by assaulting the victimized police officer by displaying drinking, breathing spathing, breathing, etc., toward the victimized police officer, etc., it is necessary to strictly punish the Defendant.

However, it does not seem that the defendant led to the crime of this case, his mistake is divided in depth, the degree of assault inflicted by the defendant against the victimized police officer is very important, and there is no record of criminal punishment due to the criminal act against public authority in the past.