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

On April 21, 2020: (a) around 00:10, the Defendant: (b) assaulted the Defendant’s spouse D who was sitting in QM6 car on the front and rear seat of the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu building, but was reported 112, and tried to listen to the circumstances of the instant case to the Defendant and D by the E District security F, and Police Officer, who called the Defendant and D, “Chose, f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in each legal statement of witness G, F, and H;

1. Application of investigation reports (related to arrest of an offender in the crime of violence and suspicion of obstruction of performance of official duties) to G and F statements, investigation reports (I statements of a scambling person), investigation reports (applicable to patrol patrols)-related Acts and subordinate statutes

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime concerned;

1. Selection of an alternative fine to be imposed under Articles 40 and 50 of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da1548, Apr. 1, 201; Supreme Court Decision 201Da1268, Apr. 2,

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;