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

On September 26, 2017, the Defendant found “C” restaurant located on the second floor located in the Dongdong-gu, U.S., Sinyang-gu, U.S., with a view to drinking, and was divingd under the restaurant at the bottom of the restaurant, and, upon receiving a 112 report, “E, who is a public official belonging to the police of the D District Police Station in the U.S., U.S., U.S., Dong-gu, U.S., U.S., U.S., U.S., the Defendant:

Whether the crime was committed;

C. By stating that C.E. F.p., S.P., Mahee, would have been infinite, and assaulted the above E’s part and the right part twice in drinking.

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. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes concerning CCTV images-fashion photographs;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 136 of the choice of punishment;

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

1. Circumstances unfavorable to the sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act with regard to the order of provisional payment: The obstruction of the execution of official duties by itself is deemed to be minor.

subsection (b) of this section.

The degree of tangible force exercised by the victimized police officers is not somewhat weak.

The favorable circumstances: the defendant is against the defendant, and there is no same kind of criminal record.

The defendant deposited KRW 150,00 to the damaged police officer.

In addition, the defendant's age, sex, motive and background of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and all of the sentencing conditions identified in the records of this case and the trial shall be determined as ordered in consideration of the same.