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

1. On May 20, 2017, the Defendant: (a) refused to settle the taxi expenses that had been flown at the front of a police box located in Ansan-si, Mansan-si; (b) the Defendant, upon receipt of a report from the relevant taxi driver and the relevant taxi driver, refused to pay the taxi expenses that had been flown at the same time; and (c) the Defendant, upon receipt of the report from the F Officer of the same police box where he/she belongs to the said

The taxi expenses shall be paid.

“Around the hearing of the horses,” “Abreging the horses, Abreging a taxi driver, taking the breging of the taxi engineer, and breging the f, “Abreging this bre by a police officer,” etc., and breging the f on two occasions by hand.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of the police officer on the maintenance of public order.

2. The Defendant, who damaged public goods, was arrested in the police officer by committing the crime of the above 1st time and 50,000 won, and was seated at the waiting seat of the police box in the instant 1 E box, accompanied by the Defendant’s sound of “A swimming, h. rings, h. rings, h. rings,” and accompanied by the repair cost of the vehicle, 50,000 won, which was installed at the same time, to walk a block for the prevention of escape installed therein.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the use of goods by public offices, thereby harming their utility.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to F and G;

1. Written estimate and receipt;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. Relevant Article 136 of the Criminal Act, Articles 136 (1) (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties), and 141 (1) (the point of damaging goods for public use) of the Criminal Act and the selection of fines for the crime;

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

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the Aggravated Punishment of the Provisional Payment Order is that the instant crime is a bad and the need for punishment is high.

However, the defendant's wrong recognition of his act, volunteer service activities after the crime of this case, etc. shows the attitude of resistance, the first offender, the defendant's deposit for the damaged police officer, and the police box.