beta
Text
The Defendants are not guilty.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged of the instant case is a police officer who was on duty under the jurisdiction of the Jeonju Police Station C police box, and the Defendants were arrested as a flagrant offender against the suspected crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, after receiving a report of 112 on October 13, 2016 that a traffic accident occurred on or around 09:55, and called to the Donsan-gu D apartment E-dong parking lot at the time of Jeonju-si and called “F and Sin-do” at the same place.
1. At around 15:00 on April 25, 2017, Defendant A appeared as a witness of the former District Court No. 1, the former District Court No. 2016Kadan2299 of the former District Court, which was in Jinjin-gu, Jinjin-gu, Seoul, and took an oath against the Defendant’s obstruction of performance of official duties, and the prosecutor was notified of the punishment for perjury. In presenting the witness statement to the Defendant, the prosecutor presented the witness’s statement to the Defendant, stating that “I am Ma-Ma, I am I I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I
‘The purpose of this case’ is to say that the timber was bleeped, but this is not true.
I ask "," "I will do so."
I have the honor to go beyond my consideration.
Therefore, I have been in excess of this.
The answer “,” and the prosecutor continues to go beyond the Defendant’s “weaking and cutting off.”
I asked, “I have been in excess of, as the case may be.”
The prosecutor answer "," and the prosecutor asked the defendant to have anywhere to the part of the item.
I would like to read “I am less than the lower part”.
The answer to "," and again, the prosecutor may write down the back of the situation in which it is reported to him.
I asked "," and "I have been in the same manner as you write down the title in arms in the situation of seeing each other."
“The answer was made.”
However, there was no fact that G was putting the defendant over the bridge of G, and there was no fact that G exceeded the defendant's timber.