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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

1. At around 11:50 on December 17, 2012, the Defendant interfered with ordinary traffic by entering the center of the second line road along which many vehicles pass, without justifiable grounds, in front of the C convenience store located in Chang-gu, Changwon-si B, Changwon-si, and obstructing the traffic of the non-vehicles vehicles passing on the road for about 50 minutes, by putting the vehicle into the center of the second line road along which many vehicles pass without justifiable grounds.

2. At around 13:00 on December 17, 2012, the Defendant: (a) arrested a police officer who was reported on the ground of paragraph (1) and was dispatched to the scene as a flagrant offender; and (b) obstructed the police box before the police box to the patrol vehicle; and (c) assaulted the Defendant, who was on the back of the patrol vehicle, on the back of the patrol vehicle, was on board the Defendant, who was on board the patrol vehicle, by opening the rear door of the patrol vehicle, on one occasion.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of official duties by police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement to F, G, and E;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (to hear and report telephone statements from persons for reference);

1. Relevant Article 185 of the Criminal Act, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act and the selection of fines for the crime;

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

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

4. As to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant alleged that he was in a state of mental disorder or mental disorder by stating that he had no memory under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant case. Thus, according to the records of the instant case, even though he was found to have dice at the time of the instant crime, he did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions.

The defendant's above assertion is not accepted as it seems to be in a state or weak condition.