2. Where the defendant does not pay the above fine. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 16093, Jan. 1,

On November 20, 2014, at the same time, the Defendant: (a) received a sprink-typeless report from the “Curiju Party” located in Ansan-si B on November 20, 2014; and (b) demanded the Defendant to pay the drinking value and return home from the slope E belonging to the Andong Police Station D branch of the Ansan-dong Police Station D branch, which called “The Defendant sent to the said E,” and (b) took the Defendant’s bath to read “Isphere immediately humping off as EM. sp. ma. sp. sp. sp. sp. to the right edge

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers on the handling of reported duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement to F and E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (Evidence List 9);

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

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

1. In order to establish the legal order of the country with reasons for sentencing Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, there is a need to strictly punish the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties.

However, the Defendant had no record of being punished for the same crime prior to the instant case, and there was no criminal punishment heavier than the suspension of execution for other crimes.

In addition, recognition of the crime of this case and attitude against it is shown.

In light of the above circumstances favorable to the defendant, the punishment like the order was determined in consideration of the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc. as shown in the pleading.