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

On November 9, 2013, 2013, the Defendant: (a) received a 112 declaration that he was frighting inside the “D packing Ma in Heung-gu, Young-gu, Young-si (Seoul)” (No. 8482) and sent out and listened to the circumstances of the case, and thereby interfered with the legitimate official duties of the police officer by assaulting the Defendant on one occasion the left her hand-top wom wres to the slope F (the 45 years old, south) affiliated with the Gung-dong Police Station Epia, which had heard the circumstances of the case.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on witness F and G’s respective statutory statements;

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

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

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order

1. The illegality of obstruction of the performance of official duties is denied as it constitutes a justifiable act for resisting illegal arrest without being notified of the summary of the alleged facts or the reasons for arrest.

2. According to the above evidence, the fact that the Defendant was sent to the scene by the police officer F, a police officer, after receiving a report that he was frighting to the college students on the side of the Defendant, was sent to the scene with the H police officer, and the circumstances of the case are as follows: “The Defendant was found to have a large amount of drinking, whether or not he dices, and whether or not he was fright,” and the Defendant was pushed with F, “I am to fright,” and “I am at the end of the site and the end of the road,” and the F was found to have the following facts: the Defendant was found to have been arrested as a flagrant offender, such as undermining the Defendant and threatening him, after notifying the Defendant of the summary of the offense and the right to appoint counsel, etc. In full view of these facts, the Defendant’s assertion that the circumstances of the instant case was confirmed by being dispatched to the police officer after receiving the report is without merit.