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

On November 26, 2018, at around 23:10 on November 26, 2018, the Defendant: (a) 112 reported 112 that “the owner of the business was able to take a bath at the Cju shop located in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Namdong-gu B; (b) seeed that “I will see what is the name of the party, what is the name of the party, what is the name of the party, and what is the name of the party, and how I want to go back,” and seeed that “I am back, I am hick, and am hick, with the above police officers coming back from the stairs, and assaulted F’s hick hand.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on handling 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of each Act and subordinate statute of G, E, and F

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 136 of the same Act concerning the applicable criminal facts, the choice of fines;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. In light of the circumstances leading up to the instant crime committed by a police officer who was dispatched after being reported 112 on the grounds of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the case was not easy, but the degree of the type of the crime was not relatively heavy, the crime was committed by a contingent state, and the police officer was showing an attitude of excessive and contradictory to the victim in the investigation stage, taking into account favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant's age, character, character and environment, motive for the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the punishment was determined as ordered, taking into account all the circumstances revealed in the records and arguments, including the defendant's age, character and behavior, and environment, the motive for the crime, and the fact that the damaged police officer had no criminal power.