In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fines, only 100,000.

1. On July 13, 2016, Defendant B argued with other customers at D main points located in Southern-gu, Southern-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, 2016, Defendant B tried to go to the above customers even though he was separated by the slopeF belonging to the 112 police box affiliated with the 112 police box, and the patrolmen called out after receiving the report, and tried to go to go to the front of the said box, and was able to go to go to the said customers by the said F. The Defendant 2 expressed that “I am to go to the feth of this f.” on his hand, she was f.h., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f.,

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers in regard to the handling of 112 reported cases.

2. The Defendant was arrested as a current offender with the above G and patrolman for the same reason as described in paragraph 1, on the date and time, at the place, as described in paragraph 1, while disputing other customers with the above Party B, after receiving 112 reports, after being separated by the assistant F of the Donannam Police Station E (a police box) assigned to the 112 police box, and became the front of the above D main line. On the ground that the above Party B was identified in paragraph 1, the Defendant was arrested as a current offender interfering with the performance of official duties by the said G and patrolman for the same reason as described in paragraph 1.

“The face of the G was taken by her hand while referring to “”.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officials in regard to the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each police statement made to F and G;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 136(1) of the same Act and the selection of fines for criminal facts

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act on the confinement of the workhouse (defendants)

1. Taking into account the following: (a) the Defendants’ reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act was committed by the Defendants; (b) Defendant A did not have the same force and Defendant B did not have the same kind of force; and (c) Defendant B was the initial offender.