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 May 11, 2015, at around 00:45, the Defendant was solicited to return home from a slope E belonging to the Seoul Gangseo Police Station D police box, which was patroled by a person who was under the front of the C branch located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and a person who was under the patrol while carrying out a vision.

On May 11, 2015, at around 01:03, the Defendant: (a) sought a Dabox located in Gangseo-gu Seoul, Seoul; (b) stated that he was recommended as above; and (c) that he was “I would like to have the Dobb where I would have engaged in volunteer activities in this area for 4 years; (d) I would like to say, “I would like to do so; and (e) I would like to go home again from the said G.

At around 01:19 on May 1, 2015, the Defendant: (a) 201: (b) expressed that E and G were urged to go home from the H police vehicle and go home on two occasions, and (c) obstructed the lawful performance of duties by E police officers related to the prevention, suppression, and investigation of crimes, by assaulting, such as: (a) the instant E and G were compelled to go home from the H police vehicle; (b) the instant police vehicle was prevented from driving ahead of the said police vehicle; and (c) the said E and G were removed from the police vehicle on two occasions; and (d) obstructed the lawful performance of duties by E police officers related to the prevention, suppression, and investigation of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Protocol of the police statement concerning G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation;

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of fines, and the choice of fines;

1. The reasons for the sentencing of Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act with respect to the detention of the workhouses cannot be said to be that the Defendant’s degree of obstruction of the performance of official duties in this case is minor.

However, the order is issued in consideration of the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant seems to have reached the crime of this case by contingently, the mistake is recognized, and the defendant is repented, the defendant does not have the same criminal record as the defendant, and there is no other criminal record except for the minor criminal record which is minor one time in the past.