Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant: (a) around October 22, 2015, on the grounds that, around 23:50 on October 22, 2015, the convenience store C, located in the wife B, the Defendant: (b) obstructed the Defendant who assaulted F by the police officers affiliated with D District Police Station D, the Yeongdeungpo-dong Police Station D, which was called upon 112, and tried to arrest E as an offender; and (c) took a bath for E; and (d) had the wheels of both arms and arms.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the arrest of a flagrant offender by a police officer.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. A written statement;

1. A victim E-victim photo;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Selection of a selective fine (referring to various circumstances that serve as a condition for sentencing, such as the fact that the degree of interference with violence or performance of official duties is not serious due to any contingent crime, the first offense, the amount of monthly income, and the amount of monthly income);

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The part dismissing a public prosecution under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act against the order of provisional payment

1. The summary of the facts charged: (a) on October 22, 2015, the Defendant expressed a desire to the victim F (16 years old) who is an employee of the convenience store, and assaulted the victim on a one-time basis on the part of his/her hand, on the ground that the cash of the cash withdrawal machine was not withdrawn in light of the convenience store C-V located in the wife population B, Gan-si. In light of the convenience store located in the wife population B, the Defendant expressed a desire to the victim F (16 years old).

2. Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 260 (3) of the Criminal Act for the reason of dismissing the public prosecution (the victim’s expression of non-original intent not to punish the victim on December 17, 2015, which was after the institution of the public prosecution in this case)