Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On June 30, 2016, at around 21:27, the Defendant: (a) discovered the “F that he was trying to return to Korea” in front of the police box located in Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul; (b) stated that G was subject to the control from G during the process of the police box belonging to the Seoul police station E box; and (c) assaulted the police officer’s flaps by her hand on the ground that he was able to remove from G.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the prevention of crimes by police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each statement made by the witness G from among the second public trial records and by the witness F from among the third public trial records;

1. Application of the investigative report (Attachment of CCTV images CDs released from a strike)-related statute;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 136 of the choice of punishment;

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the claim of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order: ① the defendant did not take a bath against the police officer or salbbbbbing him, ② the defendant's execution of duties was illegal; ③ the defendant's act was legitimate defense against the police officer's illegal infringement; ④ the police officer's handling of the case was not neutral; ③ the defendant was emotional evidence; although the defendant did not constitute the current criminal of special assault, arresting the defendant as the current criminal was not legitimate; the arrest was not legitimate; the search of the defendant's main money was not legitimate after the arrest; and the defendant was injured by excessive suppression by the police officer; and thus, the defendant was acquitted.

However, comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the Defendant was a police officer G and H, who was waiting outside of the police box to return home, led the Defendant to F. At that time, by taking the arms of the Defendant.