A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months and by a fine not exceeding 500,000 won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine.

Punishment of the crime

1. On December 8, 2015, the Defendant smoked tobacco at the home room of the D Authorized Brokerage Office located in C in the city of ambling on the following occasions: (a) on December 8, 2015, and discarded the cigarette butts; (b) even if the cigarette butts should be disposed of in a safe place, the Defendant left the window and discarded it out of the window, and laid down into the second floor of the building.

As a result of the above negligence of the defendant, the flock left in the front of the cigarette butts attached to the front of the above office, such as clothes left behind the above office, and the flock was spreaded to the outer wall of the building in the above office.

After all, the defendant, who is a general building victim E, destroyed the building building, outer wall, and drainage pipe of the above authorized broker office, which are equivalent to 458,000 won.

2. On December 8, 2015, the Defendant interfered with the performance of special official duties at an authorized brokerage office as described in paragraph (1) of Paragraph (1) of Article 115 that read “the building of an authorized brokerage office or any other fire has occurred” is called to the site upon receipt of a 112 report and in order to investigate the cause of a fire, etc. by entering the site, he/she shall have the position of the F district unit of the said certified brokerage office that entered the office of the said certified brokerage office in order to determine the cause

Chewing . “Chewing ...”, among the above G reports, the above G threatened the above G by putting the watch inside the office on hand and destroying the glass above the book.

Accordingly, the Defendant carried dangerous articles and interfered with the police officer’s legitimate execution of duties in relation to criminal investigations (the Defendant and his defense counsel are lawful search of the Defendant’s office. As such, the Defendant’s defense counsel asserted that the act of the Defendant’s defense does not constitute a crime of interference with the performance of official duties, or constitutes a legitimate defense. However, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the instant performance of official duties cannot be deemed unlawful as a performance of official duties under Articles 5 through 7 of the Act on the Performance of Police Duties.