If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

On December 27, 2018, at around 22:10 on December 27, 2018, the Defendant saw alcoholic beverages to a police box located in C, which was inside and outside of the police box, and was scleeped and scling at a place of outdoor stop outside the police box.

Accordingly, the police officer slope D, police officer E, who belongs to the police box of the Osan Police Station, deemed necessary to assist the defendant, has the right to ask the defendant whether he/she was in need of assistance, and the defendant, the defendant, who was asked whether he/she was in need of assistance, began with approximately five minutes on his/her own, while asking him/her whether he/she was in need of assistance.

이후 주취자 보호업무를 위해 도움이 필요하다고 판단한 위 경사 D, 경장 E이 피고인에게 가족 등 보호자 연락처, 파출소 방문 사유 등을 묻는 과정에서 피고인이 몸을 제대로 가누지 못한 채 뒤로 넘어질 것 같은 상황이 반복되어, 경장 E이 피고인의 오른쪽 어깨를 잡고, 경사 D이 계속하여 질문을 이어가자 피고인은 갑자기 "야 이 씹쌔끼야. 이 개새끼야. 이거

1. The tax base of this case, “I am provoking”, and the Defendant continued to take a bath in sporadity, and assaulted once by misunderstanding the parts of the above spoke E, which were in the sporads of the Defendant.

Ultimately, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of official duties concerning the police officer’s duty to protect the police officer.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports;

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 reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act include: (a) the Defendant had a record of having been sentenced to multiple punishments, such as seven times of punishment for a crime of different types; (b) the crime committed during the period of repeated crime; and (c) the fact that the nature of the instant crime is not good.

However, the fact that the defendant is recognized to commit the crime, and that the defendant again commits the crime.