Defendant shall be punished by a fine of four million won.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

At around 06:30 on May 3, 2013, the Defendant d and 501, under the influence of alcohol at the Defendant’s residence, shacked the rest door door door at which she was influent, laid down a fire, and franced a disturbance upon receiving a report 112, and obstructed the Defendant’s legitimate execution of duties concerning the prevention of crime against slopeF, etc. by threatening F from the slope F of the Nowon Police Station E-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, and called “I am influent, I am out of the house.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of each police statement related to F and G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs, such as scene of crime;

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of fines, and the choice of fines;

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

1. The sentencing reason for Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order has a record of being subject to multiple criminal punishment for violent crimes and crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties. In particular, on October 13, 201, the Seoul Western District Court sentenced the Seoul Western District Court to two years of suspension of execution, one year of imprisonment for obstruction of performance of official duties, and one year of suspension of execution, and 160 hours of community service order, which became final and conclusive on October 21, 201, and committed the instant crime despite the period of suspension of execution.

However, this case, however, is located in the house after the Defendant returned home to the house, such as drinking alcohol and shouldering the entrance door glass and fire at the house, and the police officer called to the site upon the report of neighboring residents who avoided the disturbance at the house of the Defendant, and the Defendant called the site. As such, the police officer called to the police officer to go out of the house and satisfing the shoulder, and satfing him as stated in the facts constituting a crime, and the police officer called to the police officer who called to the “I would be killed.” As such, the Defendant was a case where the police officer called to the “I would be killed.”