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

피고인은 2020. 1. 3. 00:30경 인천 부평구 B에 있는 ‘C주점’ 앞길에서, ‘위 장소 앞에서 다투는 사람들이 있다’는 112신고를 받고 현장에 출동한 인천부평경찰서 D지구대 소속 경위 E(53세)이 피고인에게 무슨 일이냐고 묻자 술에 취해 극도로 흥분한 상태에서 위 E에게 “짭새 새끼야, 맞짱 까자 개 같은 새끼”라고 욕설을 하면서 위 E의 얼굴을 향해 주먹을 1회 휘두르고, E이 이를 피하자 양손으로 위 E의 멱살을 잡아 수회 흔들어 폭행하였다.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the protection of the lives, bodies, and property of the police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of E and F;

1. Application of on-site photographs and CCTV image photographs statutes;

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

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 defendant's act on the grounds of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is likely to be criticized in that not only prevents police officers from maintaining the order of police officers, but also can promote light of legal order and public authority.

However, the defendant is currently recognizing and opposing his mistake, and there is no particular punishment power up to now.

In addition to this, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, degree of exercise of force against police officers, and circumstances revealed in the trial process shall be determined as ordered by considering all the circumstances.