[criminal history] On January 29, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for larceny at the Chuncheon District Court on January 29, 2015, and completed the execution of the sentence at the Chuncheon Prison on December 18, 2015.

[2] On April 11, 2017, at around 04:30, the Defendant: (a) received a report from the head of the police station affiliated with the Seoul Yongsan-gu Police Station D branch of the Seoul Yongsan-gu Police Station that called “the time limit for taxi articles and fees”; (b) received a guidance to pay taxi expenses from the head of the police station affiliated with the D branch of the Seoul Yongsan-gu Police Station; and (c) issued the Defendant a notice to attend a trial on the ground of the non-standing vehicle; (d) sent the notice to the trial for the reason of the non-standing vehicle and issued the Defendant’s appearance; (e) sent the written notice to attend the trial for the reason of the non-standing vehicle; and (e) assaulted the E’s chest as his hand; and (e) prevented E from getting on the patrol vehicle

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the dispatch of police officers to the field.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each statement of the witness E and F in the third public trial records;

1. Statement protocol by the police for E;

1. Investigation report (a voice recording file submitted by victim E);

1. Previous convictions: Inquiries about criminal history and investigation reports (the confirmation of the date of release of a repeated crime-related case and attachment of judgment attached thereto);

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Determination on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes

1. The Defendant, at the taxi rate, abused the taxi driver to 112 and reported the taxi fee, and the police officer issued the Defendant a notice of attendance at the trial without hearing the Defendant’s horse while paying the taxi fee.

Accordingly, the defendant does his act to return to the police officer to the effect that he does not receive a notice of attendance, and there is a fact that the defendant requests the police station to return the defendant to the police station and the defendant knife the back of the patrol police station, but the police is a notice of attendance.