If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Around 08:00 on May 21, 2019, the Defendant: (a) received a 112 report from the head slope C of the Seoul Gangseo-gu Police Station B District, which called “Is a taxi without getting off or getting off the taxi; and (b) received a request from the head of the Dong-gu Police Station B District to pay a taxi fee; (c) subsequently, C et al. recommended the suspect to return home to the suspect and to take off the taxi; and (d) requested C et al. to stop the police officer from getting on the front of the patrol line; and (c) the Defendant opened the aforementioned steering line and requested C et al. to turn on the Defendant; (d) the Defendant continued to take the front of the patrol line to stop using the police officer from getting off the taxi; and (e) the Defendant was unable to get off the police officer from the front of the patrol line and to take off the taxi at the request of C et al., the Defendant continued to take off the police officer during the direction of C et al.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers regarding the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the police protocol law to C

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 grounds for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, including the motive and circumstance of the instant crime, the means and consequence thereof, the age, character and conduct, environment, criminal records, and circumstances after the commission of the instant crime, shall be determined as indicated in the order, taking into account all the circumstances as to the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.