On February 17, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for an injury, etc. at the Daejeon District Court, and completed the execution of the sentence on November 19, 201.

From around 20:50 to 21:20 on March 24, 2013, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the police officer was trying to move the D under the influence of alcohol to the E-lane’s residence in front of the office of the Geumsan Police Station C District Office; (b) obstructed the patrol vehicle and prevented the operation of the E-lane without any justifiable reason; and (c) prevented the victim slopeF from getting off from the patrol vehicle, and (d) interfered with the legitimate protective measures of the police officer on the left side, by holding the victim’s slope F from the patrol vehicle, and asking the reasons for the action.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Report of investigation (Attachment to the same type of judgment) and application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the status of confinement and confinement for each individual;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Taking into account the fact that the detention of the accused does not seem to entail excessive difficulty and injury to his dependants, in light of the type of repeated crime for the reason of sentencing Article 35 of the Criminal Act, the punishment of imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment, and the degree of interference with official duties five times, the nature of the crime is unclear in light of the motive of the crime and the circumstances after the crime, and it is unclear that the detention of the accused does not seem to involve excessive difficulty and injury to his dependants;