A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 5,000,000, and by a fine of KRW 3,000,000, respectively.

The Defendants respectively.

On March 31, 2016, at around 21:45, the Defendants: (a) received 112 reports from the Defendants to the police officers belonging to the Seoul Western Police Station C District in the Gangseo-gu Seoul Police Station, which called the Defendants, at around 21:45, at around 3 times, the Gangseo-gu Seoul Gangseo-gu, Gangseo-gu, Seoul, 374 (Jindo Do-dong). Defendant A sent the Defendant to the police officers belonging to the Seoul Western Police Station C District, who called the Defendant “I flicks who do not flick and flick the right side to view them as his hand, and the Defendant B arrested the Defendant as a flagrant offender interfering with the performance of official duties due to the above behavior, and assaulted the E head of the police officer belonging to the said C District on one occasion at the seat of the police officers belonging to the Seoul Western Police Station, and assaulted the police officers at the left side of the G police station belonging to the Seoul Gangnam Police Station.

As a result, the Defendants violated the duty of 112 reports by police officers and arrest of flagrant offenders.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each police statement in relation to E, D, and G;

1. Each statement of H and I prepared;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs damaged;

1. Defendants of the relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts: Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act

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

1. Selection of each alternative fine for punishment;

1. Defendants detained in the workhouse: The crimes of this case committed by the Defendants on the grounds of the sentencing of Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, which interfere with the performance of official duties by assaulting the police officers dispatched after receiving a report from a citizen who was under the influence of alcohol, on the part of the Defendants.

It is not possible to do so, and in the case of Defendant A, he has been punished several times for violent crimes.

However, the defendants appear to have committed a contingency crime under the influence of alcohol, and the defendant's mistake is acknowledged later, the degree of interference with the performance of official duties of the defendants is not severe, the defendants are not identical to those of the defendants, there is no other criminal conviction or more than the suspension of execution, and in particular, in the case of the defendant B, it is minor once due to the violation of the public health law.