Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who has filed a civil petition, petition, etc. against C Library several times, from the 1st floor of the above library in D around March 28, 2016, to female public officials E who work as a librarians at that place, the computer installed in the electronic information center is not operated properly.

When the computer is repaired or not

“The” made a large claim, such as “.........”

Accordingly, F, who is a public official in the industrial position belonging to the above library, talks about the defendant "B".

I would like to give an answer.

I tried to prevent the Defendant to go to the above E while doing so.

The defendant was tightly pushed by his hand the chest of the above F.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of official duties of F on the maintenance of order in the Si Library.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness F and G;

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

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspect with respect to F;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that CCTV images submitted as evidence are inadmissible as they are likely to be fabricated.

However, in light of the fact that it is difficult to find out the unique parts on the video screen and it is difficult to find out, and that there is a low possibility of video operation and editing due to the change of the chemical ballast, name carnet, video file, crypology, street file degree, the movement of body body, and the change of the freer code, the national digital forensic center's appraisal results (Evidence No. 22) that the above video files were copied and sealed by the police officer under the visit of the police officer assigned for special guard at C library and sealed by the library, and that G was confirmed again in this court, and that the witness F stated in this court that the above video was taken into the same condition as the video recorded at the time of the instant case, it is admissible as evidence.

In addition, this case is also based on the evidence other than the above images.