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

1. On May 9, 2014, the Defendant, at around 20:0, expressed a desire to take a part in the D veterinary hospital located in Sungnam-gu A, Sungnam-gu, A. The victim E (hereinafter the age of 29) said that the victim E (hereinafter the age of 29) would not take a bath to the baby, and that the victim would drink the victim’s intention of refusal from that time, and continued to cause fear to the female victim.

2. On May 9, 2014, the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties, around 20:10, at the street in front of the exit of D 1, which is located in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, and where G, a police officer belonging to the F District Unit, upon receiving a report, deemed the Defendant to flee, and prevented the Defendant to arrest a flagrant offender, thereby obstructing the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties concerning the maintenance of public order.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first protocol of trial;

1. Application of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes to witness E and G;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 3 (1) 19 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, and the choice of fines, respectively;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserted that the defendant's act constitutes self-defense or legitimate act inasmuch as the defendant's act is deemed to constitute legitimate self-defense inasmuch as the police officer G strongly takes the defendant's seat at the time and place of the ruling and thereby booming G's losses.

Therefore, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant was called to the police officer G upon the report of E 112 and started to flee to the defendant, and G was called to arrest the defendant.