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

On May 7, 2016, the Defendant reported on May 7, 2016, 04:15, at the C cafeteria parking lot in Daejeon, that “I incidental to Oratoba, while influencing Ik Ik Ik Ik Ik Ik Ik Ik Ik Ik Ik Ik Ik Ik Ik Ik Ik Ik Ik Ik the content of the instant case from an employee of the said C cafeteria, and the Defendant continued to stop Ik Ik Ik Ik Ik Ik Ik Ik Ik Ik Ik the left part of the F.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. G statements;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as photographs of violence victims and photographs at damaged scenes;

1. Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime and Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (Selection of Fine) [Reasons for Selection of Fine] [The defendant is aware of and against the crime of this case] - the defendant has deposited an amount equivalent to two times to recover the damage of the victimized police officer, the defendant is the primary offender, and the defendant seems to have committed the crime of this case in a state of full taking advantage of circumstances favorable to the defendant, which interfered with the legitimate exercise of public authority that should be strictly executed, and the attitude of the crime is bad and bad, and the crime is deemed to be bad. Thus, it may be deemed that the crime is heavy. The defendant did not agree with the victimized police officer. The fact that the victimized police officer wanted the punishment of the defendant, etc. is unfavorable to the defendant, taking into comprehensive account the records of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, motive, means and consequence before and after the crime, and all the conditions of punishment prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.