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

Around 01:02 on December 19, 2014, the Defendant: (a) stated the name of “the police officer D, who belongs to the Jeju Dong-dong Police Station, who was dispatched after receiving a report from the Defendant 112, that “the first Handphones that had drinking together do not belong to the tax base of no taxation.” (b) stated that the police officer D, who was sent to the Jeju Dong-dong Police Station, did not know about the details of the report. B prior to two years prior to the date, he stated that he was flick, he was flick, etc.; and (c) returned to the foregoing D, the Defendant stated that “I will flick, whether or not I will do so.” The Defendant took a voice that “I will do so if I will do so, I flick,” and that the part of the said D was flick, flick, and flicked, and bricked, brud, etc. of the said D.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on the control of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of each police protocol of statement to D and E;

1. Relevant Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act regarding the crime, the choice of a fine (including the fact that the defendant recognizes all the crimes of this case and reflects his mistake in depth and that the defendant has no specific penal power except once a fine is imposed, etc.);

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

1. It is so decided as per Disposition for not less than Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.