A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

C is a person who was appointed as a military police assistant in 1985 and served as a military police assistant in D from 2010, and the defendant is the defendant's wife in the above C, and E and F are government local prosecutor's offices G and prosecutor's office investigators belonging to the prosecutor's office.

E and F discovered, around 10:20 on April 7, 2015, at the Government-Si around 10:00, a defendant who was unsatisfyed to arrest the defendant I and was unsatisfyed in order to arrest the defendant I due to the absence of a detention warrant issued in the vicinity of H apartment 109 at the Government-si around 10:0, and approach the above defendant.

E has presented to the defendant a certificate of prosecutorial public official on the wall A and has taken the place at the prosecutor's seat of the government.

Although the Defendant intended to verify the Defendant’s identification card by providing that “I would like to request the verification of identity because it is similar to the multiple times,” the Defendant refused to verify the Defendant’s identification card by stating that “I would not believe the public official identification card, her husband will be her husband.”

C, even though the defendant's telephone, arrived at the site and demanded the above F, etc. to present a public official's identification card and confirmed the public official identification card from the above F, it was confirmed that the above F was called the Seoul High Public Prosecutor's Office Center and the above F was the prosecutor's investigator.

C continuously confirmed that the police officer who was dispatched to the site after receiving a report is the prosecution investigator in the presence of the police officer.

Defendant and C confirmed the above F and E’s identification card before a police officer called to the scene, and despite being aware that the prosecution investigator belonging to the Office of Government-Funded Local Public Prosecutor’s Office was in office for the arrest of Defendant, Defendant and C knew that the above F et al. was in office for the arrest of Defendant, “I will not tell the Defendant as Defendant I in absence.”

“Once “A police officer was subject to the foregoing apology, but thought that the above apology was insufficient, the above F et al. did not present a public official identification card before the police officer was dispatched to the site, and confirmed the status for the enforcement of the detention warrant.