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

On July 29, 2016, at around 00:20 on July 29, 2016, the Defendant: (a) expressed a bath to singing employee E; (b) received reports from 112 from singinging employees E; and (c) sent to the site of singing-to-sing-sing-to-sing-sing-s-to-s-to-s-s-to-s-s-to-s-to-s-s-to-s-to-s-to-s-to-s-to-s-to-s-s-to-s-to-s-to-s-to-s-s-to-s-s-to-s-s-to-s-s-to-s-to-s-s-to-s-s-to-s-s-to-s-s-to-s-to-s-s-to-s

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers in relation to 112 reported duties by police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. G’s written statement concerning G (the defendant and his defense counsel stated that they were not memory under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, and argued to the effect that the defendant was in an insane or a state of mental or physical disability. According to the records, although the defendant was found to have drinking alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, it cannot be deemed that the defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions, and thus, the above argument is rejected). Thus, the above argument is not accepted.

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and the choice of punishment;

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