1. On August 11, 2015, on the ground that around D coffee stores located in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Defendant expressed the victim F, a police officer affiliated with the Seoul Gwanak Police Station Estation, called the victim’s police officer, etc., who was called out after having received 112 report that the perpetrator was used in front of the store, that the victim F was broken his/her own. In the form where the police officer, etc. was located, the Defendant expressed the victim’s desire to “this bit bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch, bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch.”

Accordingly, the defendant openly insultingd the victim.

2. The Defendant engaged in obstruction of performance of official duties, at the time, place, and place indicated in the preceding paragraph, and at the time, at the F’s solicitation of returning home, f was scambling his fat, and subsequently, f that demanded presentation of identification card was committed by assaulting F, such as “A citizen of the Republic of Korea who is a citizen of the Republic of Korea, Chewing gue,” at one time at his right eye on the ground of wall, and f was scam his bank inside the patrol.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of duties by police officers on the protection of the host.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Entry of the defendant in part of the protocol concerning the examination of suspect by the prosecution;

1. Statement of the police statement concerning F;

1. Each photograph, accusation, investigation report (to the person for reference G telephone conversations, witness H telephone conversations), Defendant’s mental disorder assertion and judgment are asserted that the Defendant was in a state of mental disability on the ground of drinking alcohol exceeding the main amount at the time of the instant crime. Thus, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it can be acknowledged that drinking was conducted at the time of the Defendant’s crime, but it cannot be deemed that the Defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions. Thus, the above assertion is rejected.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act of the same Act concerning criminal facts (the point of obstructing performance of official duties), Article 311 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment, respectively.