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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

Punishment of the crime

On October 25, 2017, at around 00:05, the Defendant: (a) committed assault against six police officers, such as slope E, a slope E, who was in the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju, by receiving a report of 112 as an assault, and called “C”, and was arrested in the act of committing a crime against the Defendant’s friendship, on the charge of assaulting the employees of the said main office, the Defendant committed assault by six police officers, who were in the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the arrest of police officers in the act of crime.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's statement in the court (the defendant has abused police officers in the process of arrest on the date of the second public trial, but there is no desire for police officers to do so.

“The statement was made to the effect that “........”

In this regard, the prosecutor applied for permission to amend the bill of amendment to the indictment to delete the part of the original facts charged verbally on the third trial date of the trial, “Seman Daje Madro Madro Madro Madro Madro Madro Madro” from the said police officer, and this Court

After all, the defendant is the purport that all the revised charges are accepted.

[3]

1. Each police statement made to E and F;

1. Report on investigation (Attachment of photographs showing the scene of the crime by the suspect);

1. Application of any Act or subordinate statute as a result of the reproduction of one CD in the field;

1. Article 136 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

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

1. The crime of this case committed by assaulting a police officer who maintains social order and protects public safety without any justifiable reason under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order, and obstructing the performance of official duties without any justifiable reason, does not seem to have been serious in terms of the fact that the crime of this case is not good in terms of the nature of the crime, the means of obstructing the performance of official duties and the degree of obstructing the performance of official duties resulting therefrom, and the defendant recognized his mistake instead.