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

피고인은 2019. 3. 7. 19:00경 인천 계양구 B건물 C동 1층 현관 앞에서, ‘친오빠의 여자친구가 집으로 와서 밥통을 파손했다, 빨리 와달라’는 112신고를 받고 출동한 인천계양경찰서 D지구대 소속 경사 E으로부터 신고자의 주거지에서 행패를 부리지 말고 귀가할 것을 요구받자 이에 화가 나, 위 현관 바닥에 주저앉은 채 '야이 씨발, 내 집이야‘라는 등 욕설을 하며 주먹으로 위 E의 다리를 수회 때리고 발로 위 E의 배를 걷어찼다.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Court statement of the defendant (the second trial date);

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Each investigation report (the identification of a police officer's fatt or motion picture, and the verification of screen pictures in CDs attached thereto);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to capture a fymnac image data;

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 reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, upon receipt of a report of 112 reported police officers, continued to act as a threat, and when exercising violence against a police officer who was taken measures to leave his/her residence by opposing the reporter and the person who filed the report, a strict punishment should be imposed in light of the circumstances leading to the instant crime that obstructed the performance of official duties. However, in this court, the degree of the type of the crime in question shows wrong and reflects the fact that it was committed, and the degree of the exercise of the power is relatively heavy. The punishment is selected by taking into account favorable circumstances, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior or environment, the background of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., and comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances revealed in the records and arguments