Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On July 6, 2016, the Defendant filed a false report on the crime that was not “at the 653-1 road at a master’s degree,” phoneed from Chuncheon C to 112, around 14:13 on July 6, 2016.

2. On July 6, 2016, the Defendant: (a) informed at the place indicated in the foregoing paragraph 1 at around 14:26, that the E circumstances belonging to the Gangwon-do Police Station D District, Gangwon-do Police Station, which the Defendant reported 112 and dispatched to the site may be punished at the time of a re-report indicating that it is a false report as a result of checking the matters reported by the Defendant; and (b) informed that it would be punished at the time of a re-report indicating that it is a false report.

In doing so, he saw off the clothes as "I am off," and assaulted the face part of E with a bad hand, such as flaging the face part of E, pushing the shoulder part of E with a good hand.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning on-site measures and crime prevention by police officers' 112 report.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing the 112 Reporting Case Handling List;

1. Relevant provisions of the Act on the Punishment of Minor Offenses, Article 3 (3) 2 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act ( point of false reporting), Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act ( point of obstructing the performance of official duties), and selection of fines, respectively, for the crimes;

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 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. It is smaller than the Defendant’s personal circumstance that the legal interests of obstructing the execution of official duties of this case, namely, the need for protection for performing official duties on the grounds of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, are as follows.

It can not be seen that it is an element of sentencing unfavorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, it seems that the defendant has divided his mistake into two parts, and that the defendant has no particular criminal history in addition to three times before 20 years of fine, etc., it is the factor of sentencing favorable to the defendant.

In addition, the age, sex, environment, motive and background of the crime of the defendant.