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

On December 22, 2011, at around 23:30 on December 22, 2011, the Defendant: (a) was able to drink boomed in a “D” restaurant located in Busan Jung-gu, Busan; and (b) was able to see that the Defendant was able to boom boom the Defendant’s name-free employees working in the above restaurant; (c) was able to boom boom boom boom, and (d) the Defendant was able to boom the Defendant.

Accordingly, the above restaurant E reported to the police, and the Defendant took a bath to G during the Busan Central Police Station’s police box that he was called upon upon receiving a report, and took a scam, and the Defendant interfered with legitimate performance of duties concerning police officers’ criminal investigation by scam spiting on the face of the above H on the ground that the police officer avoided the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant was scambling “a person who was committing a fake scam, and was out of the scam scam,” and in the process of verifying the Defendant’s personal information at the International Police Station, H scambling on the face of the above H twice in the process of confirming the Defendant’s personal information.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness H;

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

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

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

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 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;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel in determining the assertion of the defendant and defense counsel under Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act bearing the costs of lawsuit did not have spits or spits in H’s face at the restaurant of this case, and spits the snow.

Even if the defendant's behavior is illegal arrest, it is argued that the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is not established.

According to the evidence produced on the grounds of the aforementioned conviction, the defendant found spits of spits in the face of H in the restaurant of this case, and arrested the defendant in the act of spits in the act of spits.