If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100.

On June 6, 2018, around 05:15, the Defendant was assaulted by a male who was not his name, from the first floor of D main points located in C in Namyang-si, Namyang-si.

“” was confirmed as to whether the Defendant reported 112 and the developments leading up to the assault case, together with F and G, a police officer belonging to the Namyang Police Station E District of the Republic of Korea who was dispatched to the site after receiving a report 112, from the Defendant’s friendship.

During that, there was a disturbance, such as that the native Gu of the defendant's own friend G's chest was pushed down once.

Defendant 1 tried to keep the left side part of the Gyeong G with his schill G, and was separated from F to the wall of the hallway in question.

The Defendant, with his own hand, interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning patrols and reporting processing of police officers F 112 patrols and police officers at one time.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. 112 Reporting case handling table;

1. On-site photographs and closures;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a copy of field video;

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

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. In light of various circumstances, such as the circumstance leading up to the crime acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the means and method of the crime, and the Defendant’s behavior before and after the crime, determination of the Defendant’s mental and physical disorder under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things at the time of the crime.

The reason for sentencing shows the attitude of the defendant to recognize and reflect his mistake.

There is no record of criminal punishment against the defendant.

The degree of interference with the performance of official duties is not severe.

The defendant seems to have committed the crime of this case by contingency.

In addition, the defendant's age, sex, and behavior.