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 July 14, 2020, the Defendant does not operate a signal apparatus while driving a taxi on the road at the front intersection of the B in Bupyeong-si, Seocheon-si, B, 2020.

Upon receiving the report of 112, “A road” from a slope D, a police officer belonging to the Seocheon-gu Seoul Special Police Station C District District, which is a police officer in charge of traffic control by reception, called “A road is coming to the delivery route for women,” and “A road is coming to the patrol vehicle,” but, upon refusal, continuously trying to get a slowly on the road, and assaulted D’s left chest by hand.

As a result, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties of police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each investigation report (investigation, etc. into the scene of the incident) on the Defendant’s legal statement of 112 report on the details of the police statement regarding the suspect interrogation protocol of the Defendant on the part of the Defendant’s legal statement in the police interrogation protocol (report on the malfunction of signals, etc.) and the photograph (fixture of CCTV images, etc., such as the crime type (D) report on the internal history of the police (investigation into the field) (Article 112 report on the Defendant’s legal statement on the investigation of the

1. The relevant legal provisions on criminal facts and Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act regarding the selection of a fine (accomponing the performance of official duties), and the selection of a fine (accomponing the crime of this case) (aconing the police officer who controlled traffic by the Defendant due to a mechanical trouble, such as the remainder under the influence of alcohol, and the signal signal during 1,000, and the police officer in charge of traffic control, and the police officer in charge of traffic control during 1,000, are assaulted by the above police officer. In particular, the crime of this case is not likely to be committed in light of the following: (a) the motive and circumstance of the crime; (b) the police officer in charge of traffic control in 1,00, who did not demand

The Defendant asserts that “the Defendant did not assault a police officer, and rather was assaulted by a police officer,” and appears to be the attitude of denying and opposing the crime.