If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

1. On September 18, 2015, the Defendant obstructed the performance of official duties, without any justifiable reason, assaulted B B, who was passed before the front of the elementary school of 57 on the top of the 57 upper school, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-gu, Seoul, Seoul, and was dispatched to the site after receiving a report on the damage therefrom, and was asked to ask questions about the suspicion of assault from the slopingD and patrolmen who were dispatched to the site. As such, the above police officers did not have many weathermen.

It is not possible to open on the website of the National Police Agency, the Cheongdae, or the Human Rights Commission.

“To the extent that it threatens police officers.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers on the investigation of crimes and the maintenance of order.

2. The Defendant’s insultd the victim D, who is the police officer, during the time and place set forth in paragraph (1).

2. Doz. 20 Maz. 12

The victim publicly insultingd the victim by “......”

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report and accusation report;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties), Article 311 of the Criminal Act, and the selection of fines for the crime;

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

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

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the defendant does not have any criminal records identical to those of the defendant for the reason of sentencing of the crime of this case (it appears that even if the defendant committed two recommended assault cases in 2015 and drinking alcohol is revealed, it is difficult to regard the defendant as a direct sentencing data for the crime of this case in light of the fact that the type of the above assault or all the above assault cases are not prosecuted.

However, it was considered in calculating the amount of fine, and the fact that the defendant led to his confession and misunderstanding is divided.