When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

At around 00:10 on March 14, 2014, the Defendant, along with G, H, and I, took a dispute with each other at the third floor of J Building “K, and singing together with Does, and singing the said M as an issue of its business owner and drinking value. Accordingly, the Defendant: (a) took the hand of the Defendant, as a defective hand, carried the Defendant’s hand to arrest H as a flagrant offender in fraud; (b) carried the Defendant’s shoulder; (c) carried the Defendant’s shoulder with Does; and (d) carried the Defendant’s hand, as a hand, carried the Defendant’s shoulder with Does; and (e) carried the said M’s hand and shoulder with Does; and (e) assaulted the said M’s hand and shoulder with Does.

Accordingly, in collusion with G and I, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers in criminal investigations and maintenance of order.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness M and N;

1. Each police protocol of statement against M and N;

1. Application of CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes at the scene of crime;

1. Article 136 (1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act concerning the relevant criminal facts, the choice of punishment, and the choice of fines;

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion regarding the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserts that the defendant's behavior of the police public official M who tried to arrest H as a flagrant offender constitutes an unlawful performance of official duties, and thus, the act of the defendant's statement in the facts charged against the defendant's resistance does not constitute a crime.

The crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is a premise for a legitimate performance of official duties by public officials. Whether the performance of official duties by public officials belonging to abstract authority is legitimate shall be determined objectively and reasonably based on the specific circumstances at the time of the act, and shall not be determined by pure objective criteria

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Do453, May 10, 1991). Likewise, legality of the arrest of a flagrant offender is a specific situation at the time of arrest.