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

1. On September 20, 2020, around 00:50, the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties, who received a report from the Defendant’s wife D 112 within the Nam-gu apartment B apartment of Busan, Nam-gu, Busan, and received a report from the Mayor F of the Busan Southern Police Station E District, who called the scene, listen to the above D’s report circumstances.

“Along with the foregoing F’s chest on the ground that the F said F was f’s speech, the f’s chest was tightly pushed up twice, and subsequently, the F’s chest was f’s chestd once, and the F’s f’s chest was f’s attempt to get off the said D on the grounds that the F was f’s chaired.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the police officer's legitimate performance of duties concerning the handling of 112 reports.

2. The Defendant, at the same time and place as Paragraph 1, tried to listen to the 112 reported content against the Victim D (Min, 39 years old) who was the Chief F of the Busan Police Station E District F of the Busan Police Station as the Defendant’s wife, at the time and place as set forth in paragraph 1, and the victim “Chora” is the victim.

“Along with sound and dangerous objects,” and intended to leave the victim.

In this respect, the defendant carried dangerous objects and assaulted the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the police concerning F of the defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports on a written statement of victim of D (limited to attachment to a DNA camp conducted by police officers in mobilization);

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties), Articles 261 and 260(1) (the point of special violence) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of fines for the crime;

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

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The contents and nature of each of the crimes of this case in use of violence against the police officers and the Defendant’s wife who called out after receiving a report under the influence of alcohol by the Defendant for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is not good.

However, it appears that the defendant recognized his mistake and reflects it, and the victim D.