A fine of three million won shall be imposed on a defendant.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one million won shall be the one day.

Punishment of the crime

On November 12, 2015, the Defendant: (a) in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon; (b) “I fright to a substitute engineer” was sent to the Defendant upon receipt of a report 112; and (c) was seated in a car by the border E belonging to the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon police station patrol team: “I am under the influence of alcohol, so far as I am under the influence of alcohol, I am thick.

As we confirm the personal information "," about about 40 minutes, she spits the bath theory, such as "Ie flas, Ie saws," and spits it towards it, flads it, flads it with double arms or flads it, and flads it with a drinking towards it.

As a result, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning police officers' dispatch of reports.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to E and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on investigation reporting;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act of the choice of punishment, and Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act of the selection of fines (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do148, Apr. 1, 2

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

1. The Defendant alleged to the effect that he was in a mental and physical state under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime. According to the records, the Defendant was deemed to have been under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, but was in a state of lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions due to alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, in light of the circumstances acknowledged by each evidence of the judgment, the method of committing the instant crime, and the Defendant’s act before and after committing the instant crime.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.