Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, around 04:20 on May 26, 2016, was set up as the Dao Police Station D district located in C on May 26, 2016, and at the front end of the said Mao-gu Police Station, the Defendant paid the taxi cost to the Defendant, who was affiliated with the said Mao-gu Police Station E.

“I hear the word “,” and see the truth that he was subject to a disposition of suspension of execution by arresting himself as a interference with the performance of official duties during the past period of the E, and “I am flick’s age,” and I am again with only one year and five months after the period of suspension of execution is one year and five months.

It means that “A soldier who belongs to the said global belt is frightened from F, and frightened from F, “Afrighten, frightened, paid a taxi, and frightened from such match.”

“I have heard the word “,” and assaulted F on one occasion the chest part of F on his chest part, with the upper chest part of his chest, and continuously blue the upper part of F on one hand.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of police officers' duties in relation to the prevention, suppression and investigation of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to F and G;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (to attach images showing the field conditions);

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 reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, on February 25, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment by obstructing official duties in the Busan District Court on February 25, 2015, and on March 4, 2016, the above judgment became final and conclusive on March 4, 2016, and was under suspension of execution, and thus, prevents the Defendant from committing the instant crime without drinking while drinking, and the degree of assault is relatively minor, and the said police officer did not want the Defendant to be punished by mutual consent with the damaged police officer (F). (Submission of the written agreement by June 27, 2016).