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

On June 6, 2013, at around 23:25, the Defendant: (a) boarded a D taxi operated by C Driving; (b) sought a police box located in Gwangju Mine-gu EF box bearing Si expenses as a problem of taxi expenses; and (c) at all times C received KRW 5,00,000 from a taxi rate of KRW 5,00.

Accordingly, the Defendant: “(a) reported to 112; (b) carried a taxi driver; and (c) obstructed the progress of the patrol vehicle in a way that does not occur after the said patrol while G and H attempted to drive the I patrol vehicle from around 23:25 of the same day to around 0:05 on the following day to around 40 minutes from around 23:25 of the same day.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties of police officers in relation to patrol duty.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement related H;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a copy of work place;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

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

1. In light of the fact that there are many records of fines due to violence on the grounds of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order, or that the Defendant’s act of the instant Defendant appears to have a considerable obstacle to the police officer’s performance of official duties, it cannot be deemed that the nature of the Defendant’s crime and the circumstances of the offense cannot be deemed that the Defendant appears to be somewhat weak. However, in light of the circumstances such as the fact that the Defendant was aware of all the crimes, and that the Defendant’s act of obstructing performance of official duties seems to have been relatively heavy, the amount of