However, from the date of the conclusion of the judgment, each of the above two years against the Defendants.

At around 14:50 on February 2, 2020, the Defendants demanded a drinking-free stop on the bus stops of the Daegu Dong-gu apartment complex C, Daegu-gu Seoul apartment complex, where the slope E belonging to the Dodong Police Station D commander of the Daegu-dong Police Station, who was called upon a drinking-free driving report, to the Defendant F, who was seated on the driver’s seat of the vehicle suspected of drinking. Defendant A, “I sees whether I will drive a drinking-free driving” to the slope E, “I am see if I am on a drinking-free driving,” and Defendant B committed assault by driving the sloping E body on a doubleline.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to interfere with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing video shootings;

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and the Defendants who choose to commit the crime: Articles 136 (1) and 30 of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants subject to suspended sentence: The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the conditions favorable to the following reasons for sentencing);

1. The scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines [decision of type] the obstruction of performance of official duties (category 1] and no person who has been engaged in the obstruction of performance of official duties [the scope of the recommended area and the scope of the recommended punishment] and the basic area of the recommendation [the scope of the recommended area and the punishment of the recommendation], six months to one year

2. Determination of sentence: (a) the Defendants’ age, occupation, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime; and (b) the circumstances after the commission of the crime; and (c) the conditions of various sentencing as shown in the argument of the instant case shall be determined by taking into account the following circumstances:

D. Unfavorable circumstances: The crime of this case is a case in which the Defendants assaulted a police officer while performing official duties, and it is not good to commit the crime.

The most favorable circumstances: The Defendants reflect the Defendants’ acknowledgement of all of the instant crimes.

The degree of tangible power exercised by the Defendants is not very important.

Defendant

A does not have any previous offense beyond the previous offense and fine, and Defendant.