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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, at around 05:00 on October 16, 2016, was asked to ask questions about personal matters from F after receiving a report of assault at D dan, which is located in C on October 16, 2016, by having been dispatched to F after having received the report of assault, on the said F.

The extent to which the law applies shall be as soon as possible, as L, L, L, L, L, L, L, L, L, L, L, L, L, L, L, L, L.

“Affortly, the chest of the F may be sealed by his hand, and may be arrested in the act of obstructing the performance of official duties from the F.

As a result of being notified of the F, the F does not have any “nickly” against the F.

If the inside of the inside of the country is known to draw, and nb gur flab, and the frob flab, the inside of the country was pushed down by the above F's body.

Defendant continued to capture the above F to arrest the Defendant in the act of committing the crime, thereby obstructing the performance of official duties. The Defendant sent the Defendant and f to gather it, and was pushed down with the above F F’s chest.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of reported cases and the maintenance of order by police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness F, G and H in each part;

1. Application of two Acts and subordinate statutes to two photographs; and

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. Determination on the defense counsel’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order

1. The main point of the argument is that police officers arrested the defendant in the act of committing the crime on the ground that he/she refuses to comply with the presentation of his/her identification card, and this does not constitute an interference with the execution of official duties.

2. According to the aforementioned evidence, the Defendant may recognize the facts of assaulting the police officer beyond complying with the police officer’s demand for presentation of identification card prior to arrest of a flagrant offender by the police officer.

Therefore, the above argument is not accepted (as seen later, the part of the defendant's act of intending to open the wall.