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

On August 29, 2017, around 03:17, the Defendant was urged to return home from the police box E and the police box F to return home, and the Defendant was dispatched after receiving a report from 112 that “the Defendant took a bath from the proprietor of the sidewalk.”

Accordingly, the Defendant expressed the police officer’s desire to “routs and chacks”, and tried to compulsorily open the steering gate and the right part of the patrol vehicle (G Sota) to return to the police officer, and prevented the police officer from departing from the patrol vehicle by placing the front door of the patrol vehicle and the right part of the patrol vehicle on the back of the patrol vehicle.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties of police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Application of the investigative report (as to the situation and arrest of suspects at the time of mobilization), and the statutes governing the list of reported cases;

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

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

1. There is a need for public officials to perform their duties on the grounds of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which are subject to strict protection.

The degree of assault used by the defendant against police officers is not somewhat weak.

However, the Defendant recognized and reflected the instant crime.

There is no record of committing the same crime.

In addition, all of the sentencing conditions, such as the contents and circumstances of the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime, the age of the accused, and the sexual conduct, shall be determined as per the disposition.