[criminal records] On November 13, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment with prison labor due to interference with the performance of official duties in the Sungnam branch of Suwon branch, and completed the execution of the sentence at the Suwon detention center on January 28, 2016.

[2] In the case of the Defendant’s request for the presentation of an identification card to the Defendant at a D cafeteria located in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, 17:30 on July 20, 2017, when the Defendant received a report from 112 that the Defendant does not food and drink, and the Defendant demanded the presentation of an identification card from the police station affiliated with the branch police station, E, and police officer called out.

“In doing a bath with the words “,” etc., he saw the head debt of the above E, and assaulted the other part of the above F with the hand by putting the outside part of the knife worn by the knife and tearing the knife with the knife and knife with the knife.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the police officer's legitimate performance of official duties concerning 112 reporting processing duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness F and E;

1. G statements;

1. Reports on investigation, and photographs of damage;

1. Previous convictions: (A) a written reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, investigation report (the criminal defendant and his defense counsel did not have any desire or assault against police officers, but the following circumstances acknowledged by the court lawfully adopted and investigated by this court, namely, the crime of the defendant is sufficiently recognized considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court: (a) the victimized police officers have made detailed and detailed statements about the details and contents of the assault from the investigative agency to the court; (b) consistency in their statements; (c) the explanation of the situation is reasonable in light of the empirical rule; and (d) the victimized police officers have prevented the defendant from getting out of the scene for further investigation, etc. of the suspicion of fraud by the defendant.

Therefore, the above argument shall not be accepted] Application of the law

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Commercial concurrence;