However, the defendants are above one year from the date when this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. On March 23, 2017, at around 20:53, Defendant A, upon receiving a report of the fire station’s request for joint response with respect to the subject of drinking alcohol on the street in front of the Gangwon River, the Defendant started coming to walking the city expenses from the Hongcheon Police Station E District security guards F of the Hongcheon Police Station, and patrolmen who received a request for returning home from G, and when the patrolmen started to take them into a cell phone, Defendant A tried to take them into the cell phone, Defendant A, who was able to take a bath, and f’s face of the victim by drinking, f’s f face, f’s f’s f’s f’s bat, and f’s f’s bat.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning field measures by police officers according to 112 report.

2. Defendant B, at the time and at the place specified in the preceding paragraph, arrested a police officer on the charge of assaulting a police officer as described in the preceding paragraph, and upon such arrest, whether the police officer was designated as a flagrant offender as stated in the preceding paragraph.

“A sound,” and assaulted a police officer with the view to walking the G’s beam by generating it.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the police officer's legitimate execution of duties concerning on-site measures and arrest of flagrant offenders.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each police statement concerning G and F;

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment for the crime, Articles 136 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended sentence is an element of sentencing unfavorable to the Defendants, inasmuch as the Defendants interfered with police officers’ performance of official duties by exercising violence against police officers in the lawful performance of official duties, and such act is not less than that of the Defendants’ act, and the degree of interference with official duties caused by the Defendants’ act is not less light.

On the other hand, the defendants recognized all of the crimes of this case and divided, and the defendants deposited some amount for the damaged police officers, and the defendants did not have any criminal record of fine or heavier, etc. are favorable to the defendants.