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

Defendants on February 28, 2016, at around 03:07, the D restaurant located in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Nam-gu C, and were disputing with the attachment of drinking with customers who drink alcoholic beverages on other tables.

There is a bet.

Although police officers belonging to the Incheon Southern East Police Station E District District of the 112 reported to the purport that “F and G are called “Ilman who makes a talk outside of a shop,” they have come to go out of a restaurant, on the ground that they are about to come out of the restaurant without having their talks, even though they were called “Ilman who will come out of the restaurant.”

Accordingly, Defendant A’s “I see why I do not see, why I see, and why I see” the F.

“Is or police officers are required to do so by law.”

2. The head of Si/Gun/Gu stated that the head of Si/Gun/Gu had the head of Si/Gun/Gu with the head of Si/Gun/Gu, and the head of Si/Gun/Gu had the head of Si/Gun/Gu with the head of Si/Gun/Gu with the head of Si/Gun/Gu.

“Dr.e., d.b.?”

"............" The chest of the above G continued to be both handsed and pushed down, and assaulted by spathing brans.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired and interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers regarding the prevention of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each police statement made to F and G;

1. A H statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of each CCTV video recording room;

1. Defendants of the relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts: Articles 136(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act

1. Commercial concurrent defendants: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. The Defendants: Imprisonment with prison labor;

1. Defendants on probation: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances shall be considered for the reasons for sentencing);

1. Defendants who observe protection and order to provide community service and attend lectures: Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. Application of the sentencing criteria [Scope of the recommended punishment] The basic area (from June to one year and four months) (no person in special sentencing) shall interfere with the performance of official duties;

2. As to the Defendants’ act of exercising violence against police officers who perform official duties.