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

On November 23, 2015, at around 03:25, the Defendant: (a) sent out after receiving a report of assault in front of the “C” located in Busan Jung-gu, Busan; (b) the security guards affiliated with the Busan Central Police Station D commander of the Police Station D commander of the Busan Central Police Station: (c) prevented the Defendant from fighting; (d) attempted to walk the B’s bridge at hand; and (e) tried to remove the E’s bridge by putting the Defendant on his hand; and (e) took a way for the Defendant to go on the patrol.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the suppression of police officers' crimes and the maintenance of order.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statements made to F and E;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Act applicable to the facts constituting a crime, the choice of punishment, and the choice of fines;

1. The reasons for sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, including the nature of the crime in this case, the fact that the defendant does not have any criminal records exceeding the same criminal records and fines, the fact that the defendant is against the defendant, and other matters, such as the age, sex, and environment of the defendant, shall be determined as ordered by the sentence;

Rejection of Public Prosecution

1. 공소사실의 요지 피고인은 2015. 11. 23. 03:25 경 부산 중구 B에 있는 'C' 앞 노상에서 폭행 신고를 받고 출동한 부산 중부 경찰서 D 파출소 소속인 경위 E이 싸움을 제지하자, 행인들이 있는 가운데 피해자에게 “ 민중의 지팡이가 씨 발, 좃 같네,

The victim publicly insultingd the victim by referring to the great interest that the internal tax is at a monthly level.

2. The above facts charged constitute a crime falling under Article 311 of the Criminal Act, which can be prosecuted only upon a victim’s complaint under Article 312(1) of the Criminal Act. According to the records, the victim drafted a letter of withdrawal of complaint with respect to the withdrawal of complaint against the defendant around March 28, 2016, after the prosecution of this case, and the fact that the letter of withdrawal of complaint was submitted to this court on March 30, 2016 is recognized.

Therefore, this part of the prosecution is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act.