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

1. On September 24, 2020, the Defendant violated the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act: (a) on September 24, 2020, the Defendant did not pay KRW 8,620,00 without justifiable grounds, even though he/she arrived in front of a D pharmacy located in Seo-gu Daejeon, Daejeon District, Seo-gu, Daejeon District, Daejeon District, where he/she gets on a taxi in the vicinity of the X-gu, Daejeon District.

2. On September 24, 2020, the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties on the roads in front of Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Daejeon, on September 24, 2020, the police officers G belonging to the Daejeon, Daejeon, Police Station F District, who was called to the site after receiving the report of 112 from the taxi engineer, related to the above paragraph (1) shall ask the personal information of the Defendant and ask the reporter and G about the personal information of the Defendant.

G assaulted G, such as plucking, plucking, plucking, plucking, plucking, etc. of G’s chest with 2-3 fingers.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. A H statement;

1. Investigation report (verification of on-site CCTV);

1. Application of the CCTV images to a CCTV-cape photograph and the Acts and subordinate statutes governing IG CCTV images CDs;

1. Relevant Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, Article 3(1)39 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, and the choice of a fine (the circumstances leading to the crime of this case are not good, and the necessity to punish the crime interfering with the performance of official duties is deemed to be disadvantageous to the defendant, but the defendant is deemed to have committed the crime, such as the fact that the liability for the crime was serious, but the depth of the mistake was not divided, the damaged police officer was not injured, and the degree of the tangible power exercised at the time was not relatively heavy, and there was no history of crime exceeding the same criminal history or fine, and there was no history of crime exceeding the fine that was committed by the defendant, and considering the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2)1 of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse.