Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On May 31, 2012, at around 20:0, the Defendant: (a) reported that the Defendant fleded without paying the drinking value from the stairs located in the Busan District, Busan District, the Busan District C District of the Busan District of the Police Station, which was called upon by the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant confirmed the Defendant, the Defendant committed an assault, such as: (b) having taken the head of D on one occasion at his hand, who was taking a bath for D; and (c) having walked five times the right direction of D due to the outbreak.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E, D and F;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

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

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

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the assertion is that the arrest of the police officer in the act of committing the crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties does not constitute a crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties, since it cannot be deemed that the dwelling of the defendant was denied at the time of the arrest of the flagrant offender under the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act. Thus, the arrest of the police officer in the act of assaulting the police officer by failing to comply with

2. The lower judgment constitutes a crime of fraud under Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, and the Defendant and the defense counsel’s aforementioned assertion are without merit.

In addition, according to the witness E's witness E's legal statement that he had observed the situation at the time, it is recognized that the police officer D was arrested the defendant as an in-flagrant offender in the process of in-fluence and notified all the reasons for arrest, the right to appoint a defense counsel and the right to refuse to make a statement, and the defendant started to assault the

Therefore, the arrest of the flagrant offender of this case is a legitimate arrest that satisfies the substantive requirements and procedural requirements of the arrest.