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

From around 03:20 on May 15, 2018 to 03:50 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) got drunk on the front side of Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daegu Police Station C District of Daegu Police Station, which had been working as a traffic hub; (b) had a policeman belonging to the same police station get off a window by placing a window by placing the driver’s seat of the DNA patrol vehicle belonging to the D Zone C District of the Daegu Police Station, which had been working as a traffic hub; and (c) had a policeman belonging to the same police station “I know that the homicide occurred in Seoul with a spacker, I would promptly solve it; and (d) had the above E, etc. urged him to return to Korea,

Then, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of public duties of police officers concerning police officers in relation to patrol duties, such as: (a) the Defendant’s failure to start the patrol vehicle for the said E to stop the front of the patrol vehicle; (b) prevented the said E from operating by putting his hand and head with the chief window of the patrol vehicle, which was defective in the operation of the said patrol vehicle; and (c) preventing him from operating by putting his hand his hand and head on his hand; and (d) preventing him from opening the door and closing the door between the body of the vehicle and the door.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. A written arrest of a flagrant offender;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

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. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the provisional payment order is that there is a need to strictly punish the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties in light of the recent situation of public authority.

On the other hand, it seems that mental illness such as the defendant's primary offender, the fact that the police officer's body was not directly exercising tangible power, and the detailed unknown personality disorder suffered by the defendant seems to have caused the crime of this case is favorable to the defendant.

In addition, in consideration of the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and result of the crime of this case, circumstances after the crime, etc. and all the sentencing conditions stated in the arguments and records, the punishment as ordered shall be determined.