[Criminal record] On October 17, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year due to attempted larceny, interference with the performance of official duties, etc. at the Seoul Central District Court, and completed the execution of the sentence on May 28, 2015.

[2] On October 12, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 05:40, the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul High School near the Seocho-gu Seoul High School requested the Defendant to present the driver’s license to the Defendant who violated the Road Traffic Act and to identify him; (b) accordingly, the Defendant refused it; and (c) D of the same police station called upon receiving the request for support from C and C, who violated the Road Traffic Act, was in violation of the Road Traffic Act, thereby refusing to arrest the Defendant as a current offender, such as the violation of the Road Traffic Act, due to uncertainty of his identity and residence; and (d) when D and C face are taken once a week.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the arrest of police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each protocol of examination of witness D or C;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Statement made by the prosecution against D or C;

1. Investigation report (Attachment of a victim and suspect photograph), investigation report (Attachment of a report on the detection of a suspect's suspect) and investigation report (Submission of victim D's opinion)

1. Previous convictions as indicated in the judgment: Inquiry about criminal history, application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing the status of personal confinement, 4052 high order of 14 Seoul Central District Court (written inquiry about summary information of the case, 1, 2, 3, and 4052);

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

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

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Determination on the Defendant and defense counsel’s assertion under Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes

1. The act of the alleged police officers to arrest the defendant as an offender in the act of committing an offense does not constitute a crime of obstructing the performance of official duties, and the defendant resisted against illegal arrest. The defendant's act constitutes a legitimate defense under the Criminal Act.

2. The judgment of this Court has been duly adopted and examined by this Court.