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

1. On February 14, 2017, the Defendant damage property: (a) around 23:20 on February 14, 2017, the Defendant: (b) 1011 of the Victim C, which was operated by the victim C in Seongbuk-gu Sung-si B, Sungwon-si, Sungwon-si, and (c) on the ground that peting and wrapping is bad, the Defendant damaged the Defendant’s repair cost amounting to KRW 1.320,00 of the repair cost by cutting off TV 1, cooling, receiving facilities, and computer books, etc. installed in the said ur.

2. 공무집행 방해 피고인은 제 1 항 기재 일시장소에서, 위와 같은 이유로 112 신고를 받고 출동한 창원 중부 경찰서 E 파출소 소속 순경 F 등이 1011호 안으로 들어가자, F 등에게 “ 꺼져 라 씨 발 것 들, 씨 발 놈들 뭐하러 왔노 ”라고 욕설을 하며 발로 F의 복부를 1회 차고, 이를 제지하는 순경 G의 허벅지를 무릎으로 1회 찼다.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning 112 reporting handling duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (to attach a written estimate to a victim);

1. Article 366 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties);

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of ordinary concurrent crimes (limited to cases where a person interferes with the execution of each official duty);

1. Selection of each alternative fine for punishment;

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. The reasons for sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, which are favorable to the defendant, include the following: (a) the Defendant’s mistake was pened in depth; (b) there are some circumstances to consider the motive and circumstances leading to each of the instant crimes; and (c) the fact that the Defendant agreed with the victim of the damage to property.

On the other hand, the obstruction of the performance of official duties is not only detrimental to the function of the state's legal order by nullifying the legitimate exercise of public authority, but also excessive for the safety of the general public.