If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

At around 01:10 on 26, 2012, the Defendant: (a) stated that “A slope E belonging to the DNA box called “a vehicle of the Defendant,” which received a report that “a vehicle of the Defendant, has a large music crepit”; (b) took a bath to the Defendant’s music crepit; (c) mar the ebbbbbbage of E; (d) removed the front head by putting the ebbbbbb, and had the head fall off; and (e) interfered with the legitimate performance of duties concerning the maintenance of police officers’ order and public order by assaulting for about 20 minutes, such as opening the dog of the uniforms with the rank attached continuously.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. A written arrest of a flagrant offender;

1. A certificate;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of notification of arrest or detention;

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 defendant's defense counsel's defense counsel's assertion of the defendant's defense of the provisional payment order under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is unlawful since the arrest of the defendant against the defendant was conducted without notice of the non-satisfic principle, and thus, the defendant's obstruction of performance of official duties constitutes self-defense. However, according to the evidence adopted and investigated by the court, the defendant's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense of the defendant's defense counsel cannot be accepted on a different premise, since the defendant's defense cannot be viewed as illegal in light of the situation before and after the arrest of the defendant against the crime in question