2. Where the defendant does not pay the above fine. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 16093, Jan. 1,

1. The Defendant: (a) from around 07:30 on November 30, 2015 to around 08:30 on the same day, from around 07:30, the name of the Seoul Mapo-gu building; (b) the victim E, an engineer of D’s bridge vehicles, intends to carry out above-ground work on the third floor of the above building according to a contract with the F Housing Reconstruction and Improvement Project Association; and (c) went up to the above bridge column; and (d) the execution officer G et al. demanded the Defendant to get off the bridge for about 30 minutes on several occasions; (c) thereby obstructing the victim’s private bridge vehicles by force.

2. The Defendant inspected the sloping car at the time and place indicated in Paragraph 1 as above, and obstructed police officers’ legitimate performance of duties in relation to police officers’ criminal investigation and maintenance of order by displaying drinking water as drinking water H, etc. to arrest the Defendant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. Statement of execution of delivery of real estate;

1. Report on investigation by the prosecution (Listening to statements, such as E);

1. Application of A’s image Acts and subordinate statutes governing obstruction of performance of official duties;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of fines for the crime;

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

3. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the confinement of a workhouse.

4. As to the assertion by the Defendant, etc. under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant and his/her defense counsel asserted that the act of the Defendant, who resisted the execution of official duties of this case, is not a crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, since the police officers did not have any reason to arrest the Defendant at the time. Thus, the Defendant’s act of occupying the sloping, as recognized earlier, is not a crime of obstruction of performance of official duties.