If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

On March 11, 2016, at around 01:25, the Defendant: (a) committed a dispute with male-child F in front of the E-way located in Busan Jin-gu, Busan on March 11, 2016; (b) when F was singing up with a singing shop G with a music shop operator who was set up therein; (c) thereafter, F was arrested by F as a current offender of the damage of property and assault by the police station of Busan Jin-gu, the police station of Busan, upon receiving the report of 112; and (d) destroyed F as soon as possible the part of the police officer’s arms to interfere with this.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the arrest of police officers in flagrant offenders.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of a witness G, I and J;

1. One-time protocol concerning the examination of suspect of the police against the defendant partially;

1. Each police statement made to G and I;

1. Application of each of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the offender's place, each written arrest and confirmation of a flagrant offender;

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

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, which are confined in a workhouse

1. The Defendant alleged that he did not assault the police officer’s arms as soon as possible.

Even if the Defendant committed an assault, the Defendant’s act was against the police officer’s illegal arrest of a flagrant offender, such as not notifying F of the summary of the crime, etc., and thus constitutes a legitimate defense or legitimate act.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and examined by this court as to whether the Defendant committed an assault against I’s arms as stated in its holding.

Therefore, this part of the argument by the defendant and his defense counsel cannot be accepted.

(1) At an investigative agency and this court consistently made a statement to the effect that “The Defendant’s defect in arresting F was shouldered with his arms in the police uniform.”