A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Punishment of the crime

1. On March 11, 2015, the injured Defendant: (a) around 21:50, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Busan Metropolitan City, where the Defendant was living in the lower-class ward where the Defendant was living in, (b) the victim D (the age of 22) who was living in the same lower-class, and (c) the television viewing problem; (b) was divided on the ground that the victim was pushed the Defendant; (c) was tightly, the victim’s head was skeed by breaking the victim’s head head debt at one time after putting the victim’s head head head debt at one time; and (d) got the victim’s head head on the cell with a cell phone where approximately two weeks of treatment is required, and caused injury to the victim, such as two heats, which require

2. When the Defendant was arrested as an offender in the act of committing an injury from the police officer E and guard F of the Yongsan Police Station, who received a report of fighting as mentioned in the above paragraph (a), the Defendant obstructed the police officer’s performance of official duties, and obstructed the police officer’s legitimate performance of official duties in relation to the arrest of the police officer in the act of committing an act of assaulting by the police officer E and guard F, and interfered with the police officer’s legitimate performance of official duties by walking the Bridge part of the police officer’s bridge twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Entry of the defendant's partial statement in the protocol of interrogation of the suspect against the defendant by the prosecution and each statement D;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of each police officer in relation to G or H;

1. Each police statement made to F, D, G, and H;

1. An investigation report (G call report);

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. On-site damage photographs (the defense counsel merely takes the victim's head at hand and does not have any fact of leaving the victim's cell phone, but since the statements of G and H, who are witnesses corresponding to this part of the facts charged, are consistent with each other, specific, definite, and credibility, the above facts charged are found guilty.

As the defense counsel did not comply with due process of the arrest of flagrant offenders, it is argued that the obstruction of the performance of official duties is not guilty. However, according to the evidence of the judgment, it is recognized that the defendant was arrested through lawful procedures of the arrest of flagrant offenders, such as notification of the summary of the suspected crime immediately after the crime of injury in this case. Thus, the above argument

Application of Statutes

1.