Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant shall be a Grade-6 public official working for the Yeongdeungpo-gu Military Office C division.

On May 10, 2017, the Defendant: (a) reported 112 on the part of “E” located in the north-gu, North Korea at the port of port on May 23:40, 2017; and (b) reported 112, “A person who was killed in the same line on the same line; (c) the police box belonging to the police box belonging to the port of port of port that called “A person who was killed in the same line; and (d) died.”

“The breath of “,” and assaulted, such as duplicating the bat of the said G, by duplicating it several times.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers on the handling of reports.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness G and H;

1. A copy of the report processing case list and the work log; and

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act of the choice of punishment, selection of fines (including the fact that there is no record of criminal punishment other than the previous fines on two occasions, and that a public official has faithfully served as a public official, etc.);

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act alleged to the effect that the police officer at the time of the instant case exercised an unlawful or excessive public power against the Defendant. However, according to the evidence as seen earlier, the police officer’s solicitation of returning home to Korea was taken as part of the protective measures against the perpetrator under Article 4(1)1 of the Police Officers’ Duties Execution Act, and it seems that the act was taken as part of the protective measures against the perpetrator under Article 4(1)1 of the Police Officers’ Duties Execution Act, and does not constitute an excessive or unlawful exercise of public power.

Therefore, the above argument is not accepted.