However, the above sentence shall be executed for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. On June 11, 2018, the Defendants who interfered with the performance of official duties: (a) took a bath to E on the street in front of the D convenience store located in Seongbuk-gu, Manam-si; and (b) “E being insultd before many people” was subject to the report of E 112; (c) Defendant A attempted to take the body of G in order for G, a police box affiliated with the Sungnam-nam Police Station F police box called to the site, to go to E; and (d) Defendant A committed assault, such as selling the body of G and shouldering it into a elbow; and (e) Defendant B used the chest of G to drink two to three times.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired and interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of the reported case by the above G 112 who is a police official.

2. In the case where there is a police officer dispatched to the site along with G of the damaged person as well as E of paragraph 1 of the above paragraph (1) at the same time and place as in paragraph 1 of the above paragraph, Defendant A changed to the victim whether the victim “hin few few few few few,”

C. The Ba, Narvia, and D’, expressed the desire to “Ch,” and the Defendant B expressed the victim’s desire to read “I n’t n’t n’t n’t n’t n’t n’t n’t n’t n’t n’t.e.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to insult the victim publicly.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. Each police statement protocol with respect to E and G;

1. Application of the Act and subordinate statutes to CDs (personal phone loppy campaigns / reporter mobile phone recording files);

1. Article 136 (1), Article 30 (Crimes of Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties) of the Criminal Act, Articles 311 and 30 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Defendant A who is selected to be sentenced to imprisonment: Defendant B who is sentenced to a fine;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Attraction of a workhouse (Defendant B) Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Defendant A) of the suspended execution;

1. Social service order (Defendant A) Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. The defendants' reasons for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act reflects the mistakes, and obstruct the execution of official duties.