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

1. On September 10, 2015, around 15:50 on September 10, 2015, the Defendant committed the crime against C, on the ground that, despite the dismissal of the administrative litigation related to the recognition of the former status at the second floor compensation division of the Seoul District Veterans Administration located in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, Seoul, the Defendant changed the judgment of the Supreme Court and expressed desire to its employees, and that, despite the dismissal of the appeal, C police assigned to the Seoul District Veterans Administration to whom he belongs to the Seoul District Veterans Administration would prevent the Defendant from sustaining his street.

The term "the breath", the breath of the above C in his hand, and the breath of 30 minutes, and the breath of the C in his hand.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the maintenance of safety of police assigned for special guard.

2. The lower court’s decision that D brought about by the Defendant at the place indicated in paragraph 1, around September 10, 2015, at around 16:20, around September 10, 2015, is true and correct.

As we know, I expressed my opinion that "Woo hyp hyp of the same year hyp hyp of the same year", and used the plastic name tag of the size of 15 cm in width and 8 cm in size on the hyp of the above D, and used it to the above D.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties in preparation for administrative litigation.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the witness C and D;

1. Each police statement made to D or C;

1. Images of reproduced CDs, such as CCTV images;

1. A photo of a name tag [the defendant and his defense counsel] (the defendant and the police assigned for special guard did not use the bat, batd and batd with C’s bat, spatd and spatd with C’s bat, and they did not use the bather bat, and they did not use the bather bat, such as the facts charged. However, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it is recognized that the defendant interfered with the performance of official duties by using each assault against C and D as stated in the facts charged].

1. Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act concerning the relevant criminal facts and Article 136(1) of the same Act concerning the selection of punishment (the choice of penalty, and the defendant's seal).