Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.

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

Punishment of the crime

At around 20:20 on May 15, 2017, the Defendant: (a) received a penalty payment notice from the police officer F of the Seocho Police Station E box affiliated with the police officer of the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho Police Station E box, who was called for after receiving 112 reports; (b) received a penalty payment notice from H to the police officer of the police officer assigned to the police officer of the Seocho Police Station E box; (c) sent personal signature to the above F on the penalty payment notice; and (d) obstructed the police officer from leaving the notice of penalty payment on the patrol unit; and (c) continuously prevented the police officer from operating the patrol vehicle before the patrol unit, and issued a warning that the said F would be punished for interfering with the Defendant’s performance of official duties; and (d) obstructed the police officer from leaving the patrol vehicle by assaulting the police officer, such as the police officer, G, H’s report on the duty, and maintenance of order.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Some statements made against the defendant during the police interrogation protocol;

1. The notification of the 112 Report-Related Department (the evidence of this case reveals the fact that the defendant committed an act as stated in its reasoning.

B. As to the crime of interference with the performance of official duties, violence means not only the exercise of direct tangible power against a public official, but also the exercise of indirect tangible power (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do662, May 12, 1998, etc.). The act of interference with the proceeding of patrol vehicles constitutes an assault committed in the crime of interference with the performance of official duties as an indirect exercise of tangible power against a police officer who performs his/her duties (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do960, Mar. 30, 2017). In addition, if the act of assault or intimidation was committed against multiple public officials who perform the same official duties, it constitutes a crime of interference with the performance of multiple official duties according to the number of public officials who perform the same official duties. The act of assault or intimidation was committed in the same place as above, and is evaluated as one act under social norms.