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

1. On July 1, 2018, the Defendant obstructed the performance of official duties, around 01:30, in front of the exit of 860 stone 4,00 and 1,000-dong-dong-dong, Incheon, Nam-gu, Incheon, and “A person who takes charge of the main duties” committed assault, such as, upon receiving a report 112, the Defendant’s demand for returning home from the border C belonging to the Southern Police Station B called out, and the Defendant’s hand carried on the said C at one time.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the maintenance of police officers' order and handling of reported cases.

2. On July 1, 2018, around 01:40, the Defendant damaged public goods, while arrested flagrant offenders for the same reason as described in the foregoing paragraph (1), and transferred them to a police station, the Defendant damaged public goods by walking the automatic glass door of the police station due to Gap’s own wind, thereby displaying the repair cost of 5,000 won.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of the main official of the police station;

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of public duties and the selection of fines) concerning criminal facts, and Article 141 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of damaging goods for public use and the selection of fines);

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

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

1. In full view of the following: (a) the degree of assault on the grounds of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is relatively weak; (b) the degree of damage to public goods is not serious; (c) the Defendant paid repair expenses to the repair business entity; and (d) the Defendant was punished by a fine for a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents in 2015; and (c) the Defendant was not subject to a fine for a violation