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

On February 1, 2018, from around 22:35 to 23:05 of the same day, the Defendant: (a) received a report from 112 to 112 that “a person driving alcohol” was “a person driving alcohol; and (b) sought witness’s statement from the person who was affiliated with the police box of the police station, the police officer, and sought to conduct a drinking test against F, who is the driver of the vehicle on board; (c) sought a drinking test from the police officer, “I have become aware of the driver of the vehicle on board, after she was dint, I would like to stop the above F by arresting the police officer on the ground of his refusal of drinking; and (d) removed the part of the police officer’s body, such as the defect in moving the vehicle on the patrol, the back part of the police box, and prevented the police officer from driving the vehicle from driving the vehicle on the patrol; and (d) removed the part of the police officer’s body, such as the front part of the police officer’s 2nd.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of police officers' duties related to 112 reporting processing affairs.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. A damaged photograph;

1. Application of the F-related Acts and subordinate statutes to the arrest of flagrant offenders;

1. Relevant Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts, the selection of fines (including the fact that the crime is committed, the fact that the degree of exercising the tangible power of obstructing the performance of official duties is somewhat minor, the fact that there is no record of being punished for the same crime, etc.);

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;