Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On November 23, 2014, at around 17:10 on November 23, 2014, the Defendant, along with C, left the taxi without paying KRW 5,900 of the F taxi fee driven by the victim E in front of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D.

Accordingly, the defendant did not accept the value of taxi in collusion with C without good cause.

2. The Defendant, at the time, at the time, and place specified in Paragraph 1, did not pay the taxi fee, and did not disclose personal information despite the demand for presentation of identification cards, when he was urged to pay the taxi fee and return home from H to the police officer belonging to the G District in the Seoul Metropolitan City Police Station, Guro-gu, Seoul, which was called after receiving a report to the effect that fighting was conducted.

Accordingly, the above H expressed a defective desire to arrest the Defendant as a flagrant offender, and assaulted the Defendant to walk the bar of the above H to the bet and to the bet.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning the prevention, suppression and investigation of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to E, H, I, and J;

1. Photographs of the damaged police officer, and photograph of suspect;

1. Application of the receipt statute

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstruction of performance of official duties and the choice of fines), Article 3(1)39 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of freeboard and the choice of fines) of the same Act concerning criminal facts;

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’s crime of this case with the reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order is not good, but the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime by contingency to the drunk, and the Defendant seems to have committed the instant crime at latest, recognized the mistake and reflect it, and there is no specific penalty power except the punishment imposed once.