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

On March 17, 2020, the Defendant reported 112 at Pyeongtaek-si Ba on the 17th 00:17th 17th 2020, “A male son fel around Ba has her sounded,” and requested a policeman D to return home, and refused to do so. While the Defendant was expecting to go home on the wall with her own neck, she requested the police officer D to return home with her son's son's son's son's son's son and her son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son'

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of the 112 reported case by the police officer.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a DNA image photograph;

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 Defendant, on the grounds of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, was drunkly drunk and thus obstructed the legitimate execution of official duties by exercising violence against the victim, a police officer, who was called out after receiving a 112 report, without any particular reason.

However, the punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following factors: (a) the degree of violence used by the defendant is minor; (b) the primary crime and the violation of the crime; (c) the deposit of a certain amount to the victimized police officer; and (d) the age, character and conduct, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (e) various sentencing conditions specified in the trial process