A and B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months and by imprisonment with prison labor for four months.

However, as to Defendant A and C, the same shall apply.

[2015 Highest 2906]

1. Defendant A

A. On July 7, 2015, at around 21:15, the Defendant’s insultd the Defendant’s “F” restaurant located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E, with the report of 112 on the case that the Defendant damaged the Defendant’s H’s car in front of the restaurant, and the victim police officers of the Seoul Song-gu Police Station I District called out after receiving the report of 112, and with other persons such as the above H, the Defendant ought to grow up as Korean test.

The victim publicly insultingd the victim by referring to “Irar.”

나. 공무집행 방해 피고인은 위 일시ㆍ장소에서 위 경찰관 J와 함께 출동한 경찰관 K가 위 G을 재물 손괴 혐의로 현행 범인으로 체포하려고 하자, “ 뭘 체포를 하냐,

C. T. H. H. H. T. H. H. will not be cut.

The end shall be up to the end.

“In order to intimidation and continuously interfere with the above arrest, the police officer assaulted the K, thereby obstructing the police officer’s legitimate execution of duties concerning the prevention, suppression and investigation of the crime, public peace and order maintenance.

2. Defendant C, at the above time and place, arrested Defendant C as a current offender on suspicion of interference with the performance of official duties as seen above, and obstructed the police officer’s lawful performance of duties on the prevention, suppression and investigation of the police officer’s crime, public peace and order maintenance by assaulting the police officer, such as the defect that the police officer tried to go on the patrol lane and to remove the hand of the above police officer, going on his body, and going on his chest by hand.

3. At the above time and place, Defendant B was likely to mislead Defendant B as if the police officer assaulted Defendant B at the time when Defendant B attempted to take the patrol vehicle, stating that the above police officer arrested A as seen above and tried to take the patrol lane, and that the prosecutor stated this part of the facts charged as “the defect intending to take the patrol vehicle,” and said part of the facts charged is likely to be misunderstood.