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

At around 02:30 on September 11, 2016, the Defendant: (a) provided the Defendant with a desire to pay the drinking value and return home from the police officers, such as the police officers belonging to the Jeju Dong-dong Police Station D District, who called up after having received a report of 112 to the effect that the Defendant and the Defendant walked the drinking value under the influence of alcohol; and (b) provided the Defendant with a desire to pay the drinking value and to return home from the police officers, such as the police officers belonging to the Jeju Dong-dong Police Station D Zone D District; (c) he provided the said E with the desire to the effect that “I will not realize justice and accept the drinking value in lieu of the drinking value”; and (d) by hand, the Defendant carried the chest part of the above E, which turned out of the main place, and “Ihhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh” with the Defendant’s hand.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of police officers' duties concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Each statement of F, G and H;

1. A report on investigation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing the 112 Reporting Case Handling Table;

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. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the Defendant committed the instant crime by directly assaulting the body of the victimized police officer while insulting the victimized police officer, and thus committing the instant crime. In order to establish the national legal order and eradicate the light of the public authority, it is necessary to strictly punish the crime against the public authority, such as obstruction of performance of official duties.

However, the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case, the defendant had been punished once for the crime of this case prior to the crime of this case, but there was no record of other crimes, and the above crime of this case was committed 16 years prior to the crime of this case, the sentencing precedent in similar cases, the age, character and conduct, environment of the defendant, and the degree of assault committed by the defendant against the victimized police officer, and the means of crime.