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

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

Punishment of the crime

On October 27, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of ten months for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. at the Busan District Court on October 27, 2017, and the sentence becomes final and conclusive on November 4, 2017.

At around 06:40 on February 19, 2019, the Defendant laid the smartphone cited in his hand at the bottom, and laid down the smartphone on the ground of the fact that he was arrested in flagrant offender at least four days prior to the Busan Shipping Daegu B, the Defendant “I am going to the public authority at a time, while I am going to the public authority. At this time, I am to am in one time so far as I am so far. I am to see the power, so long as I am well, I am to see, ambath, ambath, ambath, amba, and ambast.” At this time, the Defendant laid the smartphone, which was put in his hand on the floor, and the developments leading up to the police box belonging to the above police box, and “I amba amba me can be said to be dyna,” and the chest was held by the chest of this case.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of official duties in the police box.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Each photograph;

1. Investigation report (to hear statements E by police officers and telephone recording as to whether a person has any direct contact with the person);

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of criminal records, inquiry reports, investigation reports (report during the period of suspension of execution of sentence), and statutes;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the fact that he/she committed the instant crime without being aware of the fact that he/she was in the period of suspension of execution, as stated in the judgment of the Defendant, and that it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s criminal records are less severe than that of obstructing the police from performing his/her official duties by again finding the dissatisfaction in the legitimate performance of official duties.

However, the defendant reflects his fault.