However, each of the above two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive is against the Defendants.

1. Defendant A around 02:40 on December 9, 2018, at the entrance of the main points of “D” located in Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, Defendant A, the main points of which were the victim E (year 24) who was the employee of the said main points, demanded the Defendant to leave from the main points on the ground that the Defendant committed an unreasonable act against female employees inside the main points, and was placed twice the victim’s head.

In this respect, the defendant carried dangerous objects and assaulted the victim.

2. On December 9, 2018, at the front point of “D” located in Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, the Defendant: (a) arrested the Defendant’s friendly Defendant A in the act of committing a crime; and (b) took the Defendant’s friendly arrest; and (c) continuously carried the Defendant’s flaps around the I-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, and carried the Defendant’s flaps, and continuously carried the Defendant’s flaps around the I-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, and carried the Defendant’s flaps, while carrying the Defendant’s flaps, who was arrested and escorted to Flaps; and (d) carried the Defendant’s body in the process of carrying the flaps and the process of carrying the said flaps with the Defendant’s hand.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with police officers' legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of 112 reported cases and criminal investigations.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Each legal statement of witness G and J;

1. Each police statement to G, J and E;

1. Defendant B and his defense counsel asserted that the Defendant did not engage in any act such as taking a bath to a police officer or breathing a flaps, etc., as stated in the facts charged, only for the reason that he was arrested in the course of arresting friendly A, and that he did not do so.

However, according to the evidence in the judgment of the court below, it is recognized that the defendant expressed a bath to police officers G as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment of the court, and continuously breathizes the body of the police officer J as his hand.

Furthermore, it can be readily concluded that the police officer did not respond in detail to the above defendant's questions and that it was illegal performance of official duties.