If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

On June 20, 2013, at around 22:50, the Defendant, on the front side of the Busan Northern District C Housing, sent out after receiving a fire report, and took a bath to the 119 firemen, and obstructed the duties of the above firemen, and the situation E belonging to the Busan Northern Police Station D District D District Dobble, the Defendant: (a) took a bath view that “the firemen would have complied with the firemen who would have complied with it”; (b) the Defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of duties concerning the crime prevention and the maintenance of order of the police officers, by assaulting the aforementioned E, such as blocking the front side of the said E, blocking the breast by hand, blocking him/her from driving off, and throwing his/her cell phone toward the above E, and hindering him/her from performing duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of a fine concerning the crime;

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. Judgment on the assertion of the defendant and defense counsel under Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act that bear litigation costs

1. The summary of the assertion is self-defense that the Defendant’s act constitutes self-defense, which led to an injury to the right elbs of the fire-fighter by going beyond the floor by pushing ahead with the fire-fighter.

2. In order to establish self-defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act, the act of defense should be socially reasonable, taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, method of infringement, and the type and degree of legal interest to be infringed by the act of defense, etc. In light of the evidence of the judgment, the defendant who committed the act of assaulting the victim police officer, such as the act of investigating the cause of fire on the fire at the scene of a fire by the police officer, and the act of assaulting the victim, such as the act of thrown away from the fire and the cellular phone, appears to be arrested in the act of obstruction of performance of official duties by the police officer.