A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 1,000,000, and by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The Defendants respectively.

On August 29, 2015, at around 21:35, the Defendants sought that a film of “E” is being taken on the street before the ‘D Jeong-si, Ansan-si, a member C’, and received a report on the ground that Defendant A was scisfing a disturbance in drinking condition and obstructed the shooting of movies, and that Defendant A was sent to G and police officers under the control of the F police box to the scene.

1. Defendant A: (a) at the above date, at the above time and place, the victim G and the victim H are the Defendant and out of the film shooting place; and (b) the persons related to the film of the son and the residents are able to observe, “I see this dog according to her mother and her mother, who left the place of drinking.”

In recent years, police officers were not able to drink the victims under the “E” test, and they were sexually insultingly insulting the victims by openly referring to the “Choe gue.”

2. Defendant B, at the date, time, and place under paragraph (1) of this Article, expressed a desire to police officers as seen above, and the police officers arrested A as a flagrant offender in the crime of insult, and obstructed the police officers’ legitimate performance of official duties in relation to the arrest of flagrant offenders by a police officer in the manner that the police officers did not put their arms on the left side for 1 to 2 minutes in order to prevent the said police officers from being arrested as flagrant offenders in the crime of insult A, and the said H from taking any defect in the locking.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each police statement made with respect to G and H;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes for reporting internal accidents;

1. Defendant A of the relevant Article of the Criminal Act concerning the crime: Article 311 of the Criminal Act: Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendant A of ordinary concurrence: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Selection of each of the selective fines for punishment (in the case of Defendant A, even though the damage has not yet been recovered, it shall be taken into account that the above Defendant was led to confession and reflect, and that the above Defendant had no criminal record for the same kind of crime; in the case of Defendant B, the above Defendant interfered with the public official duties of the police official who is performing official duties; but the confession and reflect of the above Defendant, but the above Defendant has no criminal record for the same kind of crime, and