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

On February 27, 2016, at around 04:25, the Defendant was drunk in front of the 103-4 D apartment house B in Gwangju North-gu, Gwangju, Gwangju, and the police officers belonging to the C District Police Station of the Northern Police Station called upon receiving a report, and led the Defendant to the front of his residence.

The defendant in front of the entrance door of the dwelling area, "Ababb" in his house.

Nice, who was aware of, and tried to get the breast of the above E in the direction of stairs, while intending to get out of the direction of stairs, he opened the chest of the above E once in his hand, tightly, one time by drinking to the left side of the above D, and quih with the hand opened the left rank of the quih and the quih to put in his hand.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made in the police statement protocol with D;

1. The application of the regulations on the place of work in the earth, the list of reported cases in 112, and the photographic statutes;

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

1. The prosecutor of Article 40 and Article 50 of the Criminal Code were indicted as substantive concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code.

However, if the act of assault and intimidation was committed against multiple public officials performing the same official duties, the crime of obstructing the performance of multiple official duties is established according to the number of public officials performing the official duties. If the above act of assault and intimidation was committed in the same opportunity at the same place, and is assessed as one act under the social concept, the crime of obstructing the performance of multiple official duties is in a relationship of conceptual concurrence.

On June 25, 2009, Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505 Decided June 25, 2009 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505, Jun. 25, 2009).

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