A Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and for six months, for each of the defendants B.

However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendant

A around 21:58 on April 2, 2014, around 21:58, under the influence of alcohol to the slope E and slope F belonging to the net Police Station, who called “D” in front of the restaurant in Ma, and called “W”, the breath performed an act of assault before and after having received a report of assault on the way in front of the restaurant in Macheon-si, and performed an act of assaulting the breath of E and F, and f, f’s breath, and f’s f’s breath, and f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’, and Defendant B f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s fat, and f’s f’s f’s f’s fat, respectively.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired and interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning the prevention, suppression, investigation, etc. of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each police statement of E, G, and H;

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Defendants of relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts: Articles 136(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act

1. Commercial concurrent defendants: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. The Defendants’ choice of punishment: Imprisonment with prison labor

1. Defendants who hold a suspended sentence: Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Consideration of favorable circumstances among the grounds for the suspended sentence);

1. Defendants on probation, community service, or order to attend lectures: The nature of the crime is not weak in light of the contents of the crimes committed by the Defendants on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code.

In particular, even though the defendant A committed several violent crimes due to alcohol, he again committed the crime of this case.

However, in light of the fact that the defendants are against the crime of this case, and in particular, the defendant A said to scam and scam again to a new person, and the defendant E and only agreed with the damaged police officer E, it is so decided as per Disposition.