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 October 3, 2017, the Defendant stated in the indictment that the slope C belonging to the above police station B, which was on duty, tried to listen to the background of the visit to the police station at the time of the visit by the police station at around Suwon, the Defendant: (a) sent an article to the police station; (b) he was able to control the Defendant’s arms; and (c) at that time, C was able to find out the taxi engineer’s arms, and was assaulted by the taxi engineer at that time; (d) however, according to the evidence adopted, the Defendant reported the fact that the taxi engineer was unable to hold his house and was in his house, and even if the correction was made, it is recognized that the correction does not interfere with the Defendant’s exercise of his right to defense. Therefore, the Defendant’s correction ex officio.

Although the police officer E belonging to the police station of Suwon-won, who was dispatched after receiving the Defendant 112 report, has observed the above Defendant's assault act and frighted up to the Defendant's arms, he continued to walk up two times the chests of the above C at her head, and walked up two times due to her head, and he received two times the chests of E at her head.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers in relation to the prevention, suppression, and investigation of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. A written statement;

1. Photographs of the victim;

1. Each CD reproduction result (the defendant and his defense counsel stated in the facts charged to the extent that police officers who mispers that they were aware that they had a taxi fee and fled had engaged in the same conduct as stated in the facts charged to escape from unfair pressure, and that such act constitutes legitimate defense under the Criminal Act.

However, according to the adopted evidence, police officers engaged in the act of unfairly suppressing the defendant at the time of the instant case.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the above argument that is premised on the fact that there was an unfair infringement on the defendant is not accepted.