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

On November 8, 2014, at around 23:20, the Defendant: (a) prevented the Defendant from assaulting the Defendant’s wife H by means of assaulting the said F and the said G bridge at several times; (b) interfered with the police officer’s legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of the 112 Report; (c) at the same time, approximately two weeks of medical treatment for the victim G at approximately two weeks of medical treatment. (d) At the same time, the Defendant: (a) obstructed the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties concerning the handling of the 112 Report; and (b) obstructed the victim G by assaulting the F and the said G bridge at several times.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement concerning G and F;

1. Certificates of medical treatment;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the victim of violence;

1. The point of obstruction of performance of official duties by relevant legal provisions on criminal facts: Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act: Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order includes: (a) the accused has committed a crime committed under the conditions unfavorable to him; and (b) the accused appears to have committed a contingent crime at the time of the instant case; (c) the fact that the victimized police officer deposited a considerable amount of money after the crime; and (d) the disabled children are supported by their family's livelihood and are responsible for the livelihood; and (e) the punishment is determined as ordered in consideration of the Defendant's age, character, conduct