The above sentence shall be executed for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. On January 12, 2018, the Defendants committed the joint crime of the Defendants: (a) while the victim E (V, 40 years of age) was a cell phone in front of the “D cafeteria” in the original city of nuclear power around 22:00; (b) the victim E (V, 40 years of age) was taken with a cell phone; (c) Defendant A was plucked by hand the victim’s hand; (d) Defendant B was bucked with the victim’s shoulder part by hand; and (e) Defendant B was boomed with the victim’s shoulder part by hand; and (e)

2. Defendant A committed an assault, at the above time and place, by receiving 112 reports from police officers G belonging to the Kuju Police Station F District Police Station, who were dispatched to the scene, such as scambling the body of the said police officer by hand, and obstructing the said police officer’s performance of duties concerning the handling of reports in 112 cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. Application of statutes on police statements made to E, G, and H;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and the choice of punishment for the crime;

A. Defendant A: Article 2(2)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment, respectively.

B. Defendant B: Article 2(2)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of imprisonment

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes (defendant A), the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, including the observation of protection and community service order (Defendant A) committed assault against the victim who was placed in a diversology before the victim’s place of business, and the Defendant A committed a joint assault against the victim, and the police officers dispatched upon receiving a report, thereby exerting force against the victim.

Although the Defendants were aware of the mistake and agreed with the victim in the course of the investigation, the Defendants had a record of criminal punishment due to the crime of violent tendency, and in particular, Defendant A had a record of being subject to suspended execution as to the crime of interference with the execution of official duties in 2002.