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

On April 15, 2018, at around 22:25, the Defendant, as the guardian of the school violence case of his children, was present at the police station C in both weeks.

피고인은, 위 파출소 소속 경사 D, 순경 E이 피고인의 인적사항을 파악하는 과정에서 피고인에 대해 벌금 형집행장이 발부되어 있는 사실을 확인하여 이를 고지하고 피고인을 검거하려하자, 담배를 피우겠다는 이유로 밖으로 나가려 하였고, 이에 경사 D과 순경 E이 피고인을 제지하자 “이 씹새끼야 안놔!”라고 욕설을 하면서 팔을 휘둘러 순경 E의 가슴과 배 부위를 밀치고, 경사 D이 피고인의 손등에 수갑을 채우자 위 경장의 오른 손등을 수갑으로 가격하였다.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the arrest of the above police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Application of each police protocol of statement to E and D;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime concerned;

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 of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act requires the punishment to immediately establish the public authority and legal order in the case of obstruction of performance of official duties, and the defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the fact that he/she committed the instant crime even though he/she was sentenced to imprisonment, and did not agree with the victimized police officers, and thus is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, considering the fact that the defendant led to the crime of this case, there is no criminal record sentenced to the punishment, the damage suffered by the police officer seems not to be significant when considering the method of the crime of this case, and the fact that there is a family member to support the crime of this case, and the normal situation that is favorable to the defendant is recognized.