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

1. The Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties on August 23, 2017, at around 02:15, the Defendant arrested the Defendant as the current offender of the crime of assault by the police box belonging to the Seoul Yongsan Police Station Fagu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, who was dispatched after receiving a report from E to E 112 on the second floor of Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul.

Buckbucks and assaulted the above G on the right side of the G two occasions, such as the vehicle in walking.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning 112 reporting handling duties.

2. Around August 23, 2017, the Defendant violated the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act: (a) was arrested and waiting as a current offender for the same reason as indicated in the foregoing paragraph (1) at the F police box located in Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul on the same date; (b) was boomed with the large interest of “Se. . . . f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f.

Accordingly, the defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, forced or scamed by very rough words and conducts at government offices.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness H;

1. Statement made by the witness G in the second public trial records;

1. Abson video CD (the defendant and his defense counsel did not recognize that the victimized person was a police officer by taking the defendant at the time of committing the crime, and there was no intention of assault;

The argument is asserted.

According to consistent statements made by the injured party in an investigative agency and in this court, this part of the facts charged is fully recognized.

Each legal statement of J and K consistent with the above argument is not consistent and it is difficult to believe it as it is due to its lack of consistency.

We do not accept the above argument.

[Defendant and defense counsel had a mental and physical loss or mental weakness under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime

The argument is asserted.

According to the above evidence, it is recognized that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time, but it does not seem that the defendant had no or weak ability to discern things.