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

Around 02:40 on March 24, 2017, the Defendant asked the police officer F belonging to the Incheon Police Station E zone, who was called upon 112 declaration that the Defendant would not pay the drinking and pay the drinking value, and asked the Defendant questions about why the Defendant would pay the drinking value from the police officer F belonging to the police officer of the police station E zone of the National Police Station, which was called out after having received 112 notice that the Defendant would not pay the drinking value. However, the Defendant expressed the above F’s hump to dump, this hump, this hump, this hump, hump, and this dump to a bit of bitch,” and the Defendant expressed the hump of the F at one time by hand.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the prevention of crimes and criminal investigations by police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statements made to G and F;

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. The sentencing conditions indicated in the records, such as the defendant's age, occupation, sex, family relationship, and the circumstances before and after the crime, under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order, shall be determined as ordered by taking into account the following circumstances:

The fact that a police officer who was dispatched after receiving a report has obstructed his/her execution of duties by assaulting the police officer, and is against the law, and there is no record of the same crime.