Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

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

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A (56 years of age, women) is an unqualified person.

On March 15, 2019, at around 15:10, the Defendant operated B vehicles on the street in front of the upper 272 street in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and violated the signal, and the other traffic police officers C (the age of 48) discovered it, notified the Defendant of the fact of the violation, and issued a traffic penalty Stick.

The defendant has continuously filed a complaint, and the circumstances of C have been explained to the defendant about the procedure of raising an objection, and the defendant was able to go against the victim D police officer (the age of 34) who was under traffic control in the vicinity of the vehicle, and she was flicked with the victim D (the age of 34) who was under traffic control in the vicinity of the vehicle, and she was flicked with the victim's body part of the victim's body that she walked to the traffic control in both hands.

Accordingly, the defendant has interfered with the execution of official duties by exercising violence against the victim while performing official duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. A written statement prepared in C;

1. Blue video CDs in the patrol car [the defendant and his defense counsel acknowledged the civilian fact of the police officer, but the defendant merely scambling the police officer, and thus does not constitute an assault for the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties. In the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, an assault for the crime of obstruction of official duties should be sufficient to prevent public official from performing his/her duties due to its nature. Thus, if a public official is not opened to the extent minor and minor, it does not constitute a assault for the police officer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4449, Jun. 1, 2007). According to the evidence submitted by the prosecution, the police officer controlled the defendant's violation of the police officer's signals, etc., and it is recognized that the defendant committed a violation of the police officer's own responsibility, etc., and considering the degree of the exercise of such force and its circumstances, the degree of interference with the police officer'