공무집행방해
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.
If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.
Punishment of the crime
On December 29, 2014, at around 20:00, the Defendant tried to board the said patrol vehicle by stating that “A police officer would not drive a vehicle or move his vehicle to another vehicle,” while driving a vehicle on the front side of the D, located in M, which is located in M, the police station in the M, M, M, and M, F, a guard belonging to the M, M, M, and M, F, a guard belonging to the M, M, M, and M, E, M, M, M, and M, M, E, M, M, and M, P
Accordingly, the above F, stating that “A private person shall not drive a patrol vehicle,” and the Defendant committed violence to the right edge of the F to walk the end of the said F at one time.
Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on the maintenance of order and crime control.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Application of the respective legal statements of witness F and G to the Acts and subordinate statutes;
1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of fines, and the choice of fines;
1. 노역장유치 형법 제70조 제1항, 제69조 제2항 피고인의 주장에 관하여 피고인은 ‘F이 순찰차의 운전석 문으로 피고인의 가슴을 여러 차례 때린 다음 피고인의 양팔을 붙잡고 흔드는 등 계속 폭행을 가하였다. 피고인은 그 상황에서 벗어나려고 무릎을 들어 F의 다리를 1회 찼다. 이는 정당행위에 해당한다’라는 취지로 주장한다.
According to each legal statement of the defendant, part of the defendant's legal statement, witness F, and G, the defendant was able to drive a vehicle on the roads near C in Busan Metropolitan City at around December 29, 2014, and the F was able to move the vehicle due to the defendant's vehicle while driving the patrol vehicle while driving the patrol vehicle, and therefore, the defendant was requested to move the vehicle, but the defendant was not able to drive the vehicle, but the defendant refused to move the vehicle. The F was able to take a drinking test against the defendant on the suspicion that the defendant was drunk, but it was confirmed that the defendant was not under drinking.