The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: (a) on the front side of the “D Hospital” parking lot located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on June 12, 2014; (b) on the ground that the Defendant used the mobile phone while driving a car, the Defendant provided that he did not use the mobile phone while driving the vehicle to the above police officers after regulating the F Zone G belonging to the Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu Police Station G and the Gyeong-gu Police Station H; and (c) indicated the Defendant’s complaint on the control; (d) on the ground that the said H appears to confirm the Defendant’s mobile phone; (e) on the part of the Defendant at one time, the Defendant sent the cell phone identification number to the Defendant, thereby obstructing the legitimate performance of duties by police officers on traffic control.

According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated, around 21:20 on June 12, 2014, the Defendant was under control on the ground that he driven a e-car on the street near the “D Hospital” parking lot located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and that he used a mobile phone during driving by G of the F Zone G belonging to the Seoul Young Military Police Station, and the police officer who demanded the presentation of a driver’s license was first required to present his identity and position, etc. and present a certificate to verify it. On the other hand, the Defendant did not use a mobile phone during driving. On the other hand, the Defendant continued to present a complaint on the control while she did not use a mobile phone. The Defendant issued a driver’s license while proposing the above police officer’s identification card, and issued the driver’s license and issued the driver’s license. During that process, the Defendant demanded the Defendant to check the Defendant’s mobile phone and deducted the Defendant’s mobile phone number again, and the Defendant refused to use the mobile phone number.