Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

1. At around 01:10 on January 28, 2014, the Defendant: (a) made a public insult of the victim E, a police official, by speaking the victim’s face as a smartphone, who was dissatisfied with the first examination of the persons related to the Defendant; and (b) took the victim’s face as a smartphone; and (c) took the victim’s face from the victim; and (d) made the victim’s face from seven persons, such as the F, etc. of the East-gu Incheon Southern Police Agency, the Defendant publicly insulting the victim by speaking the victim as the victim’s “humping.”

2. The Defendant’s obstruction of performance of official duties, at the above date, at the above time, and at the above place, marks the warning that the slope E belonging to the said global belt could be punished as a crime of insult against the Defendant.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of office duties concerning E's above district activities.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. A protocol of suspect examination of G police officers;

1. Application of the police statement law to H

1. Relevant Article 311 of the Criminal Act, Article 311 of the Criminal Act, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act and the selection of fines for the crime;

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 and his defense counsel on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserts that since the defendant illegally confiscated the defendant's mobile phone to the above E, and the defendant's act constitutes a legitimate act, since he got a secret and e to take a bath in the process of resisting the seizure of the defendant's mobile phone.

In light of the background, means, methods, and degree of damage, etc. of the instant crime acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the Defendant, despite the fact that the Defendant had not seized the Defendant’s mobile phone to E at the same time, shall be insulting as indicated in its holding that he was a witness to E.