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

On August 5, 2017, at around 02:30, the Defendant was required to present his identification card from D, who was dispatched to the site after receiving a report from 112 that he interfered with the business, such as opening the beneficiaries and opening the back of a taxi in operation by a drunk male, who was under the influence of alcohol, on August 5, 2017.

이에 피고인은, 경찰관이 사건 경위 및 자신의 인적 사항을 물어보는 것에 불만을 품고 “ 내가 뭘 했다고

Doz.;

Chewing theory, such as “Chewing,” and assaulted the upper part of the pertinent D’s entrance fee only once by drinking a bad hand.

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. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statements made to D;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act of the choice of punishment (the fact that the defendant is aware of and reflects the crime, the contingent crime committed under the influence of alcohol, the fact that there is no previous conviction except the suspension of indictment due to the damage of property, the defendant is able to pay a fine, the age of the defendant and the future, etc., and the amount of fine shall be determined as per the order after selecting a fine, considering the following factors):

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

1. It is so decided as per Disposition on the grounds of Article 334(1) or more of the Criminal Procedure Act.