Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On May 24, 2020, on the road in front of the Gyeonggi-si, Gyeonggi-do, 19:52, the Defendant: (a) on the road in front of the Gyeonggi-do; (b) on the ground that the Defendant’s 112 report and received the 112 report and that the Defendant does not inform the police officer of his/her her her her bscence, it may be arrested as a flagrant offender for obstruction of the performance of official duties if the police officer sent the Defendant’s arms to the site; (c) under the influence of alcohol, he/she expressed the above police officer with a large voice of “at the time of his/her bscambling,” and (d) he/she expressed the said D’s shoulder and arms at the same time; and (d) on the other hand, he/she continued to interfere with the performance of official duties when the police officer sent a warning to the police officer to defend the Defendant’s assault.”

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. The application of the Act and subordinate statutes to the witness D and E’s each legal statement bar clock video [it is difficult to accept the witness’s testimony on the ground that there is no fact at the time of the defendant’s defense, but according to the video, the defendant’s body click is confirmed by the police officer’s body click, and there is no reason to suspect the credibility of the police officer’s testimony

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

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

1. Although the degree of assault by the defendant for the reason of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act does not focus on the punishment of the defendant, the punishment shall be determined in consideration of the fact that the crime was clearly revealed by the testimony of the victimized police officers and the scam image, etc., and other circumstances of the defendant.