"2018 Highest 2157"

1. On August 1, 2018, at around 00:15, the Defendant: (a) reported 112 to the effect that “the Defendant was assaulted” on the front side of the Busan Suwon-gu B, Busan, and was called up, the Defendant: (b) prevented the Defendant, a slope of the Busan National Police Station D box, who was called up, sought F’s dancing in his/her hand; (c) took a bath to E; and (d) taken part in E’s hand, he/she took part in his/her body once sealed, and got off his/her hand.

The defendant continued to go F to the next convenience store while entering F, and E was pushed down with the defective hand and shoulder that he tried to arrest F in flagrante with a suspicion, such as assault, etc., to arrest E as a flagrant offender.

As such, the Defendant assaulted E, a police officer, and obstructed E’s lawful performance of duties concerning dispatch of report and arrest of flagrant offenders.

"2018 Highest 2547"

2. On October 27, 2018, at around 02:10 on October 27, 2018, the Defendant: (a) opened a driver’s seat of JM5 vehicle owned by the victim I and took a theft of KRW 50,000 in cash, which was located in the contact rash, without correcting it at the second floor parking lot of H apartment apartment in Suwon-gu, Busan.

Summary of Evidence

[Fact 1] 2018 Highest 2157]

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol against the accused and F;

1. Each police statement to K and E;

1. Lritten statements;

1. Police seizure records;

1. Investigation report [the fact of subparagraph 2 at the time of the market] 2018 Highest 2547];

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. A written statement of I;

1. Application of ctv-faging statute

1. Relevant Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the execution of public duties), Article 329 of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime;

1. Of concurrent offenders, the fact that the defendant, who is disadvantageous to the reasons for sentencing Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act, obstructed the police officer's performance of official duties concerning the arrest of flagrant offenders and thus, the nature of the crime is not good, the defendant did not agree with the thief victim, and did not attend the trial.