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

On May 3, 2014, at around 00:40, the Defendant used the aforementioned E, such as: (a) the Defendant, a police officer of the Pyeongtaek-gu Police Station Diplomatic Police Station, who was called the police officer to whom the Defendant used to assault any group of members of Pyeongtaek-si, reported on May 3, 2014, saying, “I am to see where I am am spack and am spack; and (b) the Defendant am spacked the above E; and (c) the Defendant proposed the above E, “I am knick. I am spack. I am spack. I am am spacked,” and assaulted the above E, such as getting the head of the patrol car he attempted to board.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of duties by police officers on the prevention, investigation, and suppression of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

1. Application of F’s written Acts and subordinate statutes;

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. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground of the order of provisional payment is that the defendant interfered with the execution of official duties by threatening a police officer who performs official duties without any particular reason.

However, it shall be decided to select a fine in consideration of the fact that the defendant recognizes a crime and repents, that there is no previous crime, that there is no direct damage to the body of a police officer, that does not directly damage the body of a police officer, the status and family relationship of the defendant, the criminal records of the defendant, etc., and