Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On June 20, 2020, the Defendant: (a) sought to leave the taxi in front of the C cafeteria located in Daejeon-gu Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, without paying food value; (b) sought to leave the taxi site without paying food; (c) upon receiving a report 112, the Defendant used the warning that the police officer belonging to the D District of the Daejeon East Police Station D District of Daejeon-dong Police Station, a police officer assigned to the D District of the Daejeon-dong Police Station, who called “this son”, expressed that he was “this son” to the above E, who was taken to ask for personal information, and committed assault, such as drinking at once the chest part of the said E.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of police officers' duties on the prevention, suppression and investigation of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. The application of F's self-written records, G's field photographs, D's work logs, 112 Report Processing Records, and public official identification statutes;

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

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order is that it is not good that a police officer called out after receiving a report that the defendant tried to commit a dumpying offense.

In particular, the crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties needs to be punished as a crime prejudicial to the function of the state by nullifying the legitimate exercise of public authority.

The defendant did not pay damages to the police officers who suffered from the obstruction of performance of official duties until now, or did not receive any tolerance from the damaged police officers.

The defendant has been punished for a crime of violence on one occasion and has been punished for a crime of immigration.

However, it is against the defendant's wrong recognition.

It seems that the degree of force exercised by the defendant to police officers is not significant.

The defendant paid all the food costs of the restaurant that was at issue.

On the other hand, the defendant is punished.