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

피고인은 2013. 7. 7. 03:30경 제주시 C에 있는 ‘D주점’ 입구 앞에서, 112신고를 받고 출동한 제주서부경찰서 E지구대 소속 경찰관 경사 F과 경위 G가 위 업소에서 물건을 손괴하며 행패를 부린 H에게 수갑을 채우며 현행범인으로 체포하는 데에 불만을 품고 ‘우리 형님이 뭘 잘못 했냐, 빨리 풀어달라’고 하면서 F의 뒷머리와 몸을 여러 차례 밀치는 등 폭행함으로써 경찰관의 사건처리 및 현행범체포에 관한 정당한 직무집행을 방해하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s defense of the testimony of the witness G, F, and I pointed out that (i) the Defendant and the defense counsel at the time point out that H was overfacing and causing pain to the police officer at the time, and that it was overfacing, and that the Defendant and the defense counsel did not seem to have committed an act to the extent that the Defendant committed an act to interfere with the performance of official duties, and that the Defendant cannot be deemed to have committed an act to the extent that the Defendant committed an act to the extent that the police officer’s physical contact was not unlawful, and that the physical contact was not unlawful, even if the police officer’s arrest was actually completed.

In the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, assault and threat should be to the extent sufficient to obstruct a public official’s performance of his/her duties by nature, and if a public official is not opened to the extent insignificantly, it should not be deemed as such (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do449, Jun. 1, 2007). However, a witness G and F testified to the effect that “F was taking advantage of F’s back head and shoulder, but the Defendant was faced with F’s body by putting the back head and shoulder.” The Defendant testified to the effect that he/she was credibility, and according to the aforementioned evidence, the Defendant was deemed to have been aware of its credibility.