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

At around 01:40 on January 21, 2015, the Defendant: (a) 112 reported that “the drinking value has been computed; no card does exist” under the influence of alcohol in Mapo-gu Seoul and Dcarf; (b) sent out to the victim F (the age of 27) employed by the Mapo Police Station E-gu, the E-district of the Mapo Police Station (hereinafter “Mapo Police Station E-gu”) and expressed a desire to “the son who died and died of this spath; (c) the son’s age of this spath; (d) the Defendant laid the victim with the plastic bag, and (e) removed the flap of the police uniform by putting the victim’s flap with his her bat, thereby removing the flap of the police uniform.

Accordingly, the defendant assaulted police officers and interfered with police officers' legitimate performance of their official duties concerning handling of 112 reports, such as the control of the police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. Statement of the police statement concerning F;

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The Defendant’s reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act include: (a) there are several times of violence against the Defendant; (b) the same kind of force is also one time; and (c) the act of assaulting a police officer who wears his uniform without any justifiable reason under the influence of alcohol is not sufficient to commit the instant crime that interferes with the performance of official duties; and (c) there is an unfavorable

However, the defendant has no criminal records beyond the fine, and the defendant was appointed as a functional officer as of December 1, 2004, and there is no record of punishment after being notified of a summary order for the same crime in around 2009. However, if the defendant is sentenced to a suspended sentence or higher, loss of the status of a public official is presumed to be harsh in light of the contents of the crime in this case.