A A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4 million, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5 million.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

Defendants, on January 31, 2018, at around 04:14, at the front of a D cafeteria located in Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, refused to regulate drinking and escaped.

Defendant A’s failure to regulate drinking by a slope G belonging to the Incheon Bupyeong Police Station against F, a driver of the E-car, to “I will now start the franch franch.”

The term “breath,” breathing the ebbage of G, and the Defendant B used violence, such as spiting the ear dog worn by G by cutting off the ear dog worn by G, breathing the ebbbage, brining the ebbbbb, brining the ebbbb, spiting the face.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired and interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers on the crackdown on drinking alcohol.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes of the police statement protocol to G;

1. The Defendants: Articles 136(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act and the choice of a fine for the crime

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

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: (a) The reasons for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act are as follows: (b) the sentencing conditions specified in the trial process of the instant case, such as the Defendants’ age, sexual conduct, family relationship, family environment, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, shall be comprehensively taken into account; and (c) the sentence is determined as ordered.

The defendants make a confession of the crime of this case and reflects their mistake.

There is no record that Defendants were punished for the same kind of crime or sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment.

Defendant B has a record of punishment in the past over several times.

It is necessary to strictly punish police officers with regard to their acts that interfere with the performance of official duties.

Due to the Defendants’ act, the police officer seems to have been frighted with considerable insult.