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

피고인은 2015. 8. 11. 02:10경 김포시 B 앞 길에서, “술을 마셔 길을 잃어버렸으니 도와달라”고 112신고를 하였고, 피고인의 신고를 받고 출동한 김포경찰서 C파출소 소속 경위 D과 경장 E가 피고인에게 주소지를 물어보자, “경찰 개새끼들, 조회 하면 다 나오는데 뭘 물어보냐, 이 씨발놈들아”라고 욕설을 하고, 위 D에게 달려들어 왼쪽 팔 부분을 할퀴고, 위 D의 외근조끼를 잡아 흔들고, 주먹을 수회 휘두르는 등 폭행하였다.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning the prevention, suppression and investigation of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to D and E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as investigation reports and photographs of damaged parts;

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of fines, and the choice of fines;

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

1. In light of the fact that the Defendant, on the grounds of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, committed the instant crime without being aware of the fact that he/she committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime, the Defendant’s liability for the crime is not minor

However, the punishment as ordered shall be determined by taking into account the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, circumstances after the crime, etc., such as the fact that the Defendant led to the confession of the crime, the degree of assault in this case is not serious, the fact that the act of assault in this case appears to have resulted in contingent crimes under the influence of alcohol, the fact that the victimized police officer does not want the punishment against the Defendant, etc., and the punishment is to be imposed as ordered