If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

On May 14, 2019, the Defendant obstructed police officers’ legitimate performance of duties regarding handling reports, etc. by assaulting 112 police officers, i.e., a police officer, while receiving a report that “no taxi passenger will charge” in front of the Defendant’s office room located in Ulsan-gu Broom in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, U.S., U.S., U.S., U.S., and U.S., U.S., U.S., and U.S., U.S., U.S., U.S., and U.S., U.S., U.S., and U.S., U.S., U.S., and U.S., U.S.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the F Statements;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act selecting a penalty;

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

1. In order to establish the reasoning for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and eradicate the light of the public authority, it is necessary to strictly punish the crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties. The crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties of the defendant is deemed not to be less complicated. However, the crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties of the defendant is deemed to have been committed, but it is deemed that the defendant led to the crime of this case, and is divided, that the damaged police officer did not want the punishment of the defendant, that the defendant was the first offender, and all other circumstances indicated in the records, including the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc.