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

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

Punishment of the crime

On September 16, 2018, at around 04:18, the Defendant reported that the patrol car was set up on the street while moving to the nearest district in order to resolve the time expenses incurred in relation to assault and unpaid taxi charges between the taxi engineer C and the taxi engineer C in front of the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government apartment site B apartment, and requested the police officer to assist.

Then, the police officers E, who belong to the Dongjak Police Station D District D District D District D, directed the Defendant to leave the Defendant’s delivery, and the Defendant, in drinking, took the above E’s arms one time at once and two hand, tightly left the Defendant’s arms to keep the Defendant on board the patrol vehicle at his own discretion, and forced the Defendant to keep the Defendant on board the patrol vehicle at his own discretion.

As a result, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning criminal investigations by police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Each statement of E and F;

1. Each investigation report, the defendant, and his defense counsel argued to the effect that the defendant tried not to get off from the patrol car at the time of criminal facts stated in the judgment, and that the defendant did not have any criminal intent to obstruct performance of official duties. However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence are acknowledged: ① Police Officers E, etc. at the time acknowledged that they were wearing the police uniform; the defendant also appears to have been aware that the vehicle E, etc. at the time was a police officer at the time and the defendant attempted to get out of the police station; ② The defendant expressed the police officer, who demanded the presentation of identification card, “Sch bitine” and “C son” at the patrol car, and the police officer demanding to get out of the patrol car, can be sufficiently recognized as having committed the crime as stated in the judgment as a police officer’s intent to interfere with the performance of official duties of the police officer E. Thus, the defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion.