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

On August 11, 2017, the Defendant: (a) received a report from D in front of Dongsan-gu, U.S., U.S. and received a 112 report to the effect that the Defendant was going to work from D in front of Dong-gu, U.S., U.S., U.S., and received a recommendation to work from F in front of Dong-gu, U.S., U.S., U.S. police station Ear-gu, U.S., U.S., and sent back to the Defendant; (b) took the front of the police officer’s arms, her hand, her face, and obstructed the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties concerning the reporting duty.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness G and F;

1. A list of reports on investigation (on-site conditions) and 112;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of victims;

1. Article 136 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. As to the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant and his defense counsel had been in a state of mental or physical weakness or mental loss under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.

The argument is asserted.

According to the records of this case, even though the defendant was aware of the fact that he had drinking at the time, it was found that the defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime of this case, taking into account all circumstances, such as the process and consequence leading to the crime of this case, the means and method of the crime, the defendant's speech before and after the crime

It does not seem that it does not appear.

We cannot accept the above assertion.

The reason for sentencing is that police officers in the process of performing official duties exercise tangible power, and the degree of tangible power exercised is not easy.

However, after committing the crime, police officers were subject to apology several times, and considering that there has not been any criminal history so far, punishment shall be determined as ordered by the order.