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

On December 27, 2014, at around 22:55, the Defendant stated that “A youth drink” in front of the Cju branch located in Pyeongtaek-si B was erroneous in: (a) the police officer, who was a police officer in charge of the Pyeongtaek-si Police Station D police box called up after receiving 112 a report, tried to return the G (18 years of age) to the D police box by burning the police box to the D police box for the investigation of the instant case; (b) without any reason under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant: (c) stated that “A and F will be subject to the imposition of tax on and off duty of the C police box; and (d) tried to stop the operation of E and F patrols for about 10 minutes in the front of the said patrol unit by means of seating, etc. on the front of the said patrol unit.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the police officer's legitimate execution of duties concerning reporting duties and investigation of the case.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of each statute of F, E, and G;

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 (to be taken into account the following reasons for sentencing):

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 on the ground of sentencing of the provisional payment order under Article 334(1) requires strict diversification because it impairs the authority of the public authority and impedes the establishment of a legal order. However, the defendant recognized the facts charged in this case and reflects his mistake. The defendant did not have any direct tangible power as to the victimized police officers, there was no power of having been punished for the same kind of mistake, and the degree of obstruction of the performance of official duties is somewhat minor, and the degree of the obstruction of the performance of official duties is somewhat minor, the defendant committed a contingency by drinking, and other circumstances shown in the records, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct