1. On December 29, 2016, the Defendant: (a) committed theft and theft by towing one bicycle equal to KRW 100,000,00 in market value of the victim E, who was set up on the front road in Jeju Island; (b) around 03:30,00,000.

2. On December 29, 2016, around 03:35, the Defendant: (a) arrested a flagrant offender at a point 20 meters north of “G cafeteria” located in the Jeju City F on the ground that paragraph 1 was carried out at the point 20 meters north of the “G cafeteria”; and (b) removed the Defendant’s identity to the police box affiliated with the police box of the Jeju Western Police Station, which attempted to verify the Defendant’s personal information.

B. A, frop arb nb, arb, and amba.

“Along with the desire of the police officer,” the part of the said police officer’s lecture was assaulted three times to walk.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the arrest and taking over of a police officer who weared a uniform.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. State police statements made to I and J;

1. E statements;

1. Relevant photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report (in relation to the date and place of interference with the performance of official duties, and CCTV screen verification);

1. Relevant Article 329 of the Criminal Act, Articles 136 (1) (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties) and Article 136 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

1. Grounds for sentencing under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes [the scope of punishment recommended in the sentencing guidelines] : thief: Basic area (from June to June), interference with the performance of official duties: The scope of final sentence due to the aggravation of multiple crimes in the basic area (from June to January to April): From June to February 1] of June to February [the decision of sentence] recognized each of the crimes of this case at latest by the defendant, damage to the larceny was returned to the victim, and that police officers did not comply with the Defendant’s assault (Evidence 19) are favorable circumstances.

However, on February 12, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years and surveillance in August, 2015 by obstructing the performance of official duties in the Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court.