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

On April 12, 2020, the Defendant: (a) was trying to capture the above apartment house No. B with his house and divide the entrance’s password, and (b) attempted to enter the inside; (c) was assaulted by the slope F, who was dispatched to the site after receiving the report of D- 112, a resident of the above apartment, to verify the identity of the Defendant; (d) was tight F, who was sent to the site by hand, was tight F, who was tight to the above F, sealed the chest of the above F, and dumped with the ero.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on the control of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing the submission of a written statement by the police concerning F of the defendant's legal statement to E district service day and the 112 Reporting Case Handling Day;

1. Selection of a fine for selective punishment under Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts;

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground of the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is an offense that lacks the inherent risk of police in protecting the lives and property of the people by nullifying the legitimate exercise of public power.

However, considering the fact that the defendant was committing a crime and commits a mistake, the fact that the damaged police officer was taking the defendant's seat, the fact that the defendant was the first offender, and the fact that the defendant was the first offender, in favor of others.

Other conditions of sentencing, such as the age, character and conduct, criminal records, circumstances of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as the same as the order.