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

1. On November 11, 2017, the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties on the roads in front of the Seoul Western-gu, Seoul, and on the roads in front of the Seoul Central-gu.

“The Seoul Southern Police Station C police box, which was dispatched upon the report of 112, requested several times that the police officer D and the police officer assigned to the Seoul Southern Police Station C request the Defendant to return home, while refusing this request. However, the police officer was able to avoid disturbance for about 15 minutes by hand, such as making the flobbbing of the above E, pushing the chest, pushing the flobing of the chest with his own hand, and then, the police officer assigned to the same police box called to the above scene, who was a police officer assigned to the above scene.

As a result, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the dispatch duty of a police officer 112 report.

2. The Defendant: (a) at the time, at the time, at the place, and at the place, as described in the preceding paragraph; (b) the victim E and F, a police official frighting the Defendant to have the Defendant returned home as above, with the victim E and F, who are the police official fluoring the Defendant: (c) the bitch bit of a bitbitch

Governance was expressed as “A.” at the Scambling house.

Accordingly, the defendant publicly insultingd the victims.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to E and F;

1. A written statement of witnesses;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (Attachment of cellphone images);

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties), Article 311 of the Criminal Act (the point of insulting), and the selection of each fine;

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (hereinafter “Criminal Procedure Act”) is against the Defendant’s depth at the time of committing the instant crime.

The defendant is not subject to punishment at all.

In this case under the influence of alcohol, this case has been committed contingently. There are various circumstances such as the age, sex, motive for the crime, and circumstances after the crime.