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

1. On October 3, 2012, at around 20:48, the Defendant, on the front day of the Suwon-si Suwon-si, was living together with his/her female D, who was in conflict with one another, and carried out a mutual fighting. D reported to the police and requested assistance.

Therefore, in order to prevent the Defendant from assaulting and booming by the Embridge F and G police officers who were called upon 112 report, they interfered with the police officer's performance of official duties, such as “this bitch bit of bitch bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of f of bit of bit of f of bit of bit of f of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of

2. On October 3, 2012, at around 21:20, the Defendant expressed his desire to “this spack wacksp” within the Suwon-si E box, and when the Defendant was boomed, he assaulted on the left side of G on one occasion, thereby hindering the legitimate police officer’s performance of official duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first protocol of trial;

1. Each police statement made to F, G, and H;

1. A written statement of I;

1. A criminal investigation report (general);

1. Application of photographs (victims and suspects) Acts and subordinate statutes;

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. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the claim of the defendant and defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order. The defendant and defense counsel asserted that the defendant only followed the police officers and did not assault the police officers as stated in the judgment, and therefore, the following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence, namely, F and G, which are the police officers, stated that they were assaulted as stated in the judgment of the defendant, and I, a witness to the crime under paragraph (1) of the judgment of the defendant.