A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On July 1, 2015, at around 18:48, the Defendant was placed in the Gwangju Northern Police Station D District of Gwangju Northern Police Station located in Gwangju Northern-gu C, around 19:20 on the same day in order to handle summary judgments, etc. while working in a restaurant located in Gwangju Northern-gu, Gwangju.

The Defendant received notice of notification as a violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, and obstructed police officials' legitimate performance of official duties in relation to criminal investigations. The Defendant took a bath to “I am saf and NA saves, saves will not be cut off.” The Defendant taken care of saves, saves, and saves with both hand, pushed off the chest part of the above E, pushed off the breast part of E with the right drinking, and interfered with the police officers’ legitimate performance of official duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of E and F;

1. The application of statutes to a copy of a notice of penalty payment;

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (such as that there was no record of punishment of a fine or heavier punishment for the Defendant, and that the degree of obstruction of performance of official duties is not severe, etc.), the Defendant asserts to the effect that the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is not established because he/she respondeded to unfair performance of official duties, even though he/she refused to receive

However, in full view of the above evidence, E appears to have abused E as above with the intent of breaking off the notice disposition due to the misappropriation, and does not seem to have expressed its intent to refuse the notice disposition.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is based on the premise, so it cannot be accepted.