Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

On March 30, 2016, around 16:25, the Defendant: (a) obstructed the disposition of G on a semi-end basis, such as, “On the ground of the control of the He, who is a policeman belonging to the F District District of the Busan F District Police Station in the Geum-gu, Busan, Busan, on the grounds that it is too serious to control, and it is too difficult to remove the university students’ taxes free from climatic, and it is possible to remove the university students’ taxes free from climatic, thereby preventing G from disposing of the notice.”

Accordingly, if the G continues to interfere with the obstruction of performance of official duties, the defect that the Defendant issued a warning that he would arrest him as an obstruction of performance of official duties, and the Defendant committed an assault, such as: “When he speaks in the Guate test, she shall cut off, she shall do so from time to time, she shall do, she shall do so; 10 times she she takes a back, “police station shes, shes”, “G shes, shes, and shes in the direction of the F District, leading him to a volume of 2 meters.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the traffic control of police officers and the prevention of traffic hazards.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness G and H;

1. Part of the prosecution and the protocol of suspect examination of the accused;

1. Each police statement related to G and H;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to recording records, each investigation report (No. 6,9 of the evidence list);

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

1. Determination on the assertion of the accused and the defense counsel under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act for the confinement of the workhouse

1. The defendant alleged that he was only in accordance with the serious crackdown of the victimized police officer at the time, and did not assault him.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and examined by this court, the defendant was found to have frightened and frighted by the damaged police officer as stated in its reasoning.

Therefore, this part of the argument by the defendant and his defense counsel cannot be accepted.

(1) A damaged police officer shall comply with the investigation agency and this court before E. H.