A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On January 29, 2014, around 18:00, the Defendant: (a) reported the 112 report that the taxi rate is due to the taxi rate, and (b) arranged the reported situation by the police officer affiliated with the Seoul Southern Police Station, and prevented the front of the defect patrol vehicle (No. 61) by leaving the scene.

Accordingly, the above D’s defect and the Defendant expressed the above D’s desire to “D in accordance with the foregoing D’,” and assaulted the D’s chest to three times by hand, and prevented the Defendant from driving the said patrol vehicle at least twenty minutes before the said patrol vehicle.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of 112 reports and patrol duties by police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Part of the police interrogation protocol of the defendant

1. Statement by the prosecution concerning D;

1. Application of 7 Acts and subordinate statutes to the patrol booms and video CDs, and to the booms and video screen closures

1. The crime of this case with the reason for sentencing under Article 136 (1) of the relevant criminal law regarding criminal facts is alleged to be that the defendant claimed an excessive claim against the police officer on behalf of the defendant, and the defendant forced the police officer to resolve the excessive claim, and eventually, the defendant interfered with the police officer's performance of official duties by keeping the police officer in custody, taking the 20 minutes of the 20th patrol, and obstructing the progress of the police officer (the defendant, while trying to take a patrol at an investigative agency, was only the police officer was removed from the police officer while carrying out a patrol, and the defendant denied the crime by stating that the police officer was not tight or proper, but the defendant sealed the police officer before the patrol, and obstructed the progress of the patrol at the 20 minutes of the 20th patrol, as above, the defendant taken the police officer out of the roadway, in light of the fact that the police officer took a cell phone patrol at the end of the patrol.