If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

On June 13, 2018, around 08:30 on June 13, 2018, the Defendant: (a) committed violence to the police box called “C” located in Yongsan-gu Seoul, by taking a report of 112 that the Defendant avoided disturbance; and (b) by receiving a request for identification verification from the slope affiliated with the police box called “C”, the Defendant sent E with the left elbbbow; and (c) the Defendant’s police officer who tried to arrest the Defendant in the act of committing an act of committing an act of violence, respectively.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of police officers' duties concerning the 112 Reporting and Withdrawal Dong.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness F, E, and G;

1. Statement of each police statement to F and E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs on the parts of the damaged body;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime concerned;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

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

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order (Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a police officer who was dispatched resisted to make an investigation into a police officer without an investigation by the reporter, and refuses to verify his/her identity before the identity of the reporter, and that it is not a legitimate execution of official duties. However, according to each of the above evidence, the police officer who was dispatched after receiving the report of the assault was first sent to G and confirmed the circumstances of the report, and the defendant also reported the situation to the person who was called to the perpetrator, and the defendant was called to the perpetrator. While the defendant was asked to produce his/her identification card, the defendant's assertion that the police officer was forced to leave the scene before the reporter's identity is verified, but the defendant did not have any reason to arrest him/her since he/she was forced to do so while refusing the investigation by him/her, and thus, the defendant did not have any reason to arrest the defense counsel.