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

1. On February 20, 2015, the Defendant: (a) reported on the occurrence of a assault case by a prisoner at a “C” drinking house located in the wife B at the Gyeonggi-do Police Station, which was sent by the Defendant; and (b) was subject to measures for returning home after filing a petition to the police officer E, who was called out.

Around 23:50 on February 20, 2015, the Defendant, along with the police officer, moved to the front of the F building near the Defendant’s residence, using the police vehicle, and subsequently, at this place the police officer used the police vehicle to have the Defendant return home, and assaulted twice the body of the police officer on the part of the Defendant.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the investigation and maintenance of public order by the above police officers.

2. The Defendant assaulted the police officer, arrested him in the act of obstruction of performance of official duties as a crime of obstruction of performance of official duties on the following day, and 0:20 on the following day, the Defendant saw the police officer “I see, I see, I see, I see, I see, I see, I see, I see, I see, I see, I see, I see, I see, I see, I see, I see, I see, I see, I see, I see, I s

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the investigation and maintenance of public order by the above police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. Statement of police statement of E and H;

1. Photographs of crimes;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

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

1. Although the responsibility for the crime of this case that interferes with the execution of official duties by assaulting a police officer, who is on lawful duty for the reason of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, without any specific reason, the crime of this case is minor, since the defendant is under the influence of alcohol and has lost self-defense and led to the crime of this case, there are circumstances to be considered in the course of the crime, and the defendant is contrary to the circumstances.