A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 2,000,000, and by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.

1. At around 22:50 on November 17, 2012, the Defendants’ obstruction of the performance of official duties requested the Defendants to return to the Republic of Korea from a slope G belonging to the F Zone G of the Daejeon Central Police Station, which was called upon at the time of drinking house and cash receipt issuance at the “Eju shop” located in Jung-gu Daejeon, Daejeon, Daejeon, upon receiving a report, at the issue of drinking house owner and cash receipt issuance. Defendant B conspired with the Defendants to keep the G’s chest in good hands three times, and Defendant B interfered with the maintenance of the order of the police officer’s right-hand hand, such as “Ye-gu, Ha, Hae-ki, and Hae-ki”, and the Defendant A combined with it, “Ye-gu, Hae-gu, Hae-gu, Hae-gu,” and conspired with the two hand to keep the order of the police officer’s right-hand hand and interfered with the execution of G’s duty.

2. Defendant B’s insult, i.e., the head of the drinking house at the same time and at the same time, and Defendant B made a public insult to the victim H by referring to the victim “I am a bribe at this business establishment, not a person,” the victim “I am a bribe at this business establishment.”

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ partial statements in the first and second trial records;

1. A witness I and each legal statement in G;

1. Statement made by a witness H in the third protocol of the trial;

1. A complaint;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to teared photograph of work;

1. Defendants: Articles 136(1) and 30 (Appointment of Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties, Selection of Fine) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts: Article 311 of the Criminal Act

1. Defendant B from among concurrent crimes: former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants to be detained in a workhouse: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: Defendants and defense counsel’s assertion on the assertion of Defendants and defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act were merely expressed to police officers, and there was no use of force.