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

1. On August 30, 2014, the Defendant engaged in obstruction of performance of official duties: (a) on the grounds that the police officer took a bath at the E box located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Jongno-gu, Seoul; (b) on the ground that the police officer took a bath to the police officer F, G, H, and I; and (c) on the ground that the police officer continued to take a bath to the police officer outside of the said box, the police officer continued to take a bath at the above police station; (d) on the part of the police station located in the said box, the police officer was walking the front door of the said box and walking the front door of the said box several times; and (e) on the part of his hand, the police officer carried the chest of the above H that the police officer was trying to walk the Defendant to a taxi, and carried it down once with the floor of hand.

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

2. At around 03:30, the Defendant: (a) had engaged in the act mentioned in the foregoing 1. paragraph, the Defendant, at around 03:50, unloaded the shock net installed on the window of the above police box, thereby making the shock net tearing approximately 50cm.

Accordingly, the Defendant, who is a public office, damaged the defense network, which is a thing used by the police box, thereby harming its utility.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each statement made to F and H:

1. Each statement of F, G, H, and I;

1. Written statement by J;

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Articles 136(1) and 141(1) of the Criminal Act of the relevant Article of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the selection of fines;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act is that the Defendant committed a crime of this case by misunderstanding the Defendant’s wrong and reflects the Defendant’s fault. At the time, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, went through a misunderstanding of the Defendant’s misunderstanding of taking on the wall as a protective measure, appears to have reached an contingent crime (Evidence No. 3 No. 17, No. 6, No. 14), and immediately when he was arrested in the act immediately after the commission of the crime.