If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Defendant

A. On December 29, 2012, on December 29, 2012, around 5:05, the Defendant was a taxi engineer other than the instant case, and the Defendant left the Defendant at the front of the “C police box located in Pyeongtaek-si” instead of receiving the charge.

At this time, the police officer, who found the Defendant who was taking a bath, and found the Defendant from the taxi, asked the Defendant “fabs anywhere the house, dice,” and the Defendant saw the Defendant “fabsing, fabsing fabs, fabs, fabs, fabs, fabs, fabs, fabs, fabs, fabs, fabsing the Defendant, and interfered with the Defendant’s external patrol by walkinging the left side bridge of the Defendant’

나. 그후, 경찰관인 피해자 경위 E가 피고인을 달래며 귀가를 종용하자 "개씹쌔끼야, 너는 뭐하는 새끼냐, 나랑 맞장 한 번 까볼래!" 라며 욕설한 후 도로 가운데로 들어가 불특정 다수의 차량통행을 방해하므로, 피해자인 위 경찰관 경위 E가 피고인을 갓길로 데리고 나왔다.

The Defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of official duties by the police officers, such as sending the front door of the police officer E, walking the right bridge of the police officer E, which is the victim, twice, and towing the front door of the police box at least ten times.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statements made to D and E;

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of fines, and the choice of fines;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The Defendant’s crime of this case with the reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act shows the attitude of disregarding the legitimate exercise of public authority without any justifiable reason. However, the need for strict punishment is recognized by the Defendant, and the degree of the type used by the police officer who is the victim is not much serious.